Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Manufacturing Output

Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current level of United Kingdom manufacturing output; what it was on the same date in 1979 and 1981; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): In the three months to May 1989, the output of the manufacturing industry averaged 118, based on 1985 equal to 100. The comparable figures for the same three months in 1979 and 1981 were 108 and 89·6 respectively. Manufacturing output during 1989 has been at record levels, and in the three months to May was 9 per cent. and 32 per cent. higher than in the same periods in 1979 and 1981 respectively.

Mr. Kennedy: The Minister's civil servants, although not the Minister, are to be congratulated on their ingenuity in trying to make a good story out of a disastrous one. Those figures confirm that following the deep recessionary policies of the Government between 1979 and 1981, our manufacturing base has still not recovered to the level that it was when the Government came to office 10 years ago. Is that not a savage indictment of the Government's economic policies and of the damage that those policies have caused to our manufacturing base?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman has asked this question in almost the same terms before, and he received a robust answer from my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. The hon. Gentleman may recall, although he was not here at the time, that we experienced a substantial recession, which also affected the rest of the world, since when manufacturing output has increased to a level that it has never reached before. It is a very good story.

Mr. Kennedy: It has been 10 years.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that there has been a recession. Growth is now 5 per cent. higher than the previous all-time peak growth in manufacturing output. The hon. Gentleman should remember that if he asks a question once and gets the right answer, it is not worth asking it again.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although there is some good news in my hon. Friend's answer, does he accept that the news could be even better if industries such as textiles and clothing were faced with fair competition rather than

diabolically unfair competition? There has been considerable investment in those two industries in particular, and they have excellent management and have sought to market their goods internationally, yet they are being undermined by unfair competition. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government came into the real world and examined the position of manufacturing industry, the picture could be even better than the one that he has presented to the House this afternoon?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend always speaks vehemently and articulately for the industries in his constituency. As he knows, my hon. Friend the Minister of Trade. who cannot be here today, fights long and hard for the interests of the textile industry in Europe. My hon. Friend makes a fair point, although it is worth drawing to his attention the fact that since the peak of 1979, there has been an 11 per cent. increase in production in textile consumer products. That shows how successful at least part of the textile industry has been.

Monopolies and Mergers Commission

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether there have been any changes in the role of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in recent years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): The principal role of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has not changed, but its role has been extended over recent years by certain provisions in the Telecommunications Act 1984, the Airports Act 1986, the Gas Act 1986 and the Water Act 1989.

Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the primary function of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should be to identify and prevent possible monopolies from being created and to stop price fixing in industry? Does he think that the MMC has been extending its functions in recent years by proposing how industry and markets should be structured and run? Is my hon. Friend aware that as a direct result of an MMC diktat on how the gas industry should be run, the textile industry in my constituency will face a massive increase in its gas bills? Does my hon. Friend think that the fact that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State had to alter significantly the MMC proposals on the brewing industry illustrates that he believes that the MMC has overstepped the mark?

Mr. Maude: No, Sir. I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission carries out functions given to it by Parliament. It investigates matters that are referred to it either by the Director General of Fair Trading or by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State. It makes findings and recommendations. It is within the commission's powers to make the recommendations that it has made. We have implemented those that we think it proper to implement, in the way in which we think it proper to implement them.
Where the MMC finds monopolies, as in the case of the breweries and British Gas, it is entirely within its powers to recommend action to rectify the public interest detriment. That is what the MMC did and we responded to it.

Ms. Short: Does the Minister agree that we need a complete review of our monopolies and mergers legislation? In Britain, it is possible to have short-term raiding to break up companies and extract money and to detract from long-term investment in the productivity of our economy. That contrasts with what happens in West Germany and Japan, and it means that our industrial future is being destroyed in the interests of short-term takeovers. We need a new framework of law to encourage long-term investment.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Lady is wrong if she believes that Government action prevents such things from happening elsewhere——

Ms. Short: It is the framework of law.

Mr. Maude: It is not. The hon. Lady is wrong if she thinks that it is the framework of law. We are talking about the way in which markets operate and how companies are structured elsewhere. The hon. Lady is talking about interfering with the right of individuals and companies to sell their shares to a willing buyer. One should not do that unless it is in the public interest. I seem to remember that not all that long ago Opposition Members were complaining about the growth of conglomerates; now they seem to be complaining about conglomerates being broken up.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does not the increase of between 8p and 10p in the price of beer announced by the brewers yesterday illustrate the importance of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigating the brewing industry and of the action that the Government proposed in their statement last week?

Mr. Maude: It was right for us to respond to the report in the tough way that we did and to take the steps that we proposed, which will allow 11,000 more public houses to buy their beer at the cheapest price and from whoever they want. I urge pub customers to look round and find the best price for the beer that they want to buy. Not every brewery has increased its prices, by any means. There is a market and I hope that people will look for the cheapest beer that they can find.

Mr. Clelland: Will the Minister advise the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that it would save Government time, and save it much effort in making its recommendations if it took into account company donations to the Tory party?

Mr. Maude: The MMC might also want to take into account letters such as that written by Norman Willis, the general secretary of the TUC, to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State, in which he urged that all the recommendations of the MMC should be completely ignored. No doubt that was motivated by his well-known concern for Conservative party funds.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my hon. Friend share the widespread concern about highly leveraged bids? If so, would it not be desirable for the Hoylake bid for BAT to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, especially bearing in mind what the MMC said about the Elders IXL bid last year, which was similarly highly leveraged?

Mr. Maude: The House will not expect me to express a view about that case. The Director General of Fair

Trading is considering what advice he should give to the Government on whether the bid should be referred to the MMC and while we are waiting for that advice, it would be quite wrong for us to comment.

Mr. Gould: In the light of today's news on beer prices, might not the Monopolies and Mergers Commission be forgiven for concluding that its major role today is to provoke powerful monopolists to raise their prices so that the public has to pay the costs of successfully campaigning against the MMC's recommendations? Will the Minister at least reassure the MMC that it does have a continuing role? Will he think of saying something like, "I am minded to implement any recommendations that the commission makes in future if my party's paymasters will let me"?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman should have a word with his party's paymasters who have been lobbying extremely vigorously for us to ignore every one of the MMC recommendations. The TUC, and the Transport and General Workers Union, have been lobbying heavily. When the MMC finds that there is a monopoly operating against the public interest we must take action, and that is what we have done. Even if we had done everything that the MMC recommended that could not have affected what the breweries decided to do in the meantime.

Enterprise Initiative

Mr. Wilson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total cost of the advertising campaign for the enterprise initiative; and what has been the average cost per take-up.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Newton): Expenditure on advertising the enterprise initiative since January 1988 has been about £19 million. Of this, we estimate that some £14·4 million has been specifically directed at promoting the six consultancy initiatives, which would represent an average of about £485 per application.

Mr. Wilson: Will this obsessive reliance on television advertising, which is aimed far more at the electorate than at meeting any legitimate departmental purpose, survive the reign of its architect, Lord Young?

Mr. Newton: Our surveys show that the advertising is reaching about 70 per cent. of the target market and that it is producing an encouraging response from business people. Inquiries about Department of Trade and Industry services have risen by about 20 per cent. this year. I am strongly in favour of having better services that are better known and more widely used to make British industry stronger.

Mr. Dickens: Is it not a fact that this country's success was founded upon enterprise and initiative? I believe that £19 million is a small price to pay to encourage this country once again and to encourage young people leaving school, colleges and universities to think about running their own businesses. Such initiative and invention will make this country great again.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The advertising is directed not only at the consultancy initiatives, but at the promotion of the education and enterprise initiative, which this year has contributed to


65,000 extra work experience places for pupils and to the recruitment of about 5,000 teacher secondments to industry.

Chlorofluorocarbons (Fridges)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the reclamation of chlorofluorocarbons from redundant refrigerators and freezers.

Mr. Atkins: The recovery and recycling of CFCs used as refrigerants in industrial and commercial refrigerators and freezers is well established and my Department is currently engaged in research into ways of retrieving CFCs from domestic appliances.

Mr. Bennett: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that the substantial problem relates to commercial freezers and refrigerators and that the problem is smaller for household freezers? The responsible firms that provide large fridges and freezers have been reprocessing for some time, but many small, badly behaved firms have not operated in a similar manner. Something must be done to bring them into line. Some local authorities have started to collect domestic freezers, but as yet they have no way in which to reprocess the refrigerators once they have been collected.

Mr. Atkins: I differ slightly from the hon. Gentleman in that commercial and industrial refrigerators are being retrieved in great numbers, although I accept that there is always room for improvement. The hon. Gentleman no doubt appreciates that the difficulty is that domestic refrigerators use smaller quantities of CFCs and, given that there are about 30 million users of them in the country, a much more sophisticated approach to collection and recycling is required. That is why I said that we are working extremely hard on this matter with the Department of the Environment, as is the refrigeration industry, which has given a great deal of thought and attention to it.

Mr. Thurnham: My hon. Friend will remember that I brought a delegation from the refrigeration industry to see him. What has happened since then? Will he use his best endeavours to persuade all Government Departments to change their specifications to ozone-friendly refrigerants and to follow the Prime Minister's advice? Private sector firms such as Sainsbury have set a good example, but health authorities are still specifying R12.

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend speaks with considerable authority because he knows the industry well. As he said, he brought a delegation to me from the refrigeration industry board and the Institute of Refrigeration to talk about those matters. My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I am in constant touch with other Departments with a view to encouraging them to do much the same as we are doing.

Ms. Quin: Are the Government considering the introduction of a nationwide CFC recovery scheme such as that which has been announced in West Germany? Does the Minister accept that it is simply not good enough to leave the matter to individual manufacturers who may be unwilling to take on the extra costs for competitive reasons, making a Government strategy and Government measures necessary?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady should have realised from my answer that the Government are taking a lead in that respect. However, collection is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I am keen to encourage any local authority initiative in the collection of refrigerants. As I said, the industry is taking many measures to try to improve the position.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Should not the Government be praised for having raised public perception of this important matter? Will my hon. Friend congratulate Gedling borough council on the specific initiatives that it has taken, on its own or with other local authorities, to organise the collection and reclamation of old domestic refrigerators and other domestic and commercial freezer units?

Mr. Atkins: The answer to both questions is yes, Sir.

Motor Industry

Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the measures he is taking to assist the British motor car industry.

Mr. Newton: The Government's policies are designed to improve the competitiveness of business as a whole. The improved output and exports of the British motor industry are a clear sign of their success.

Mr. Smith: Does the Chancellor recall that at the time of the acquisition of Rover Group by British Aerospace, the EEC Commission was concerned to restrict overall car production capacity within the EEC? What discussions have there been with the EEC since then, and with what result? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that Honda's output from Swindon will have access to all EEC markets and that it will be in addition to, not in substitution for, production at Cowley?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that the issues at Cowley are separate from the announcement that was made last week about Honda development at Swindon. Our experience with the Commission on Nissan car exports to Europe is a sign of what we can expect on Honda or, for that matter, Toyota exports. The EEC car market has undoubtedly proved rather more buoyant than was expected at the time to which the hon. Gentleman refers, not least in Britain. The EC's current regime seeks not to restrict capacity but to prevent the payment of state aids except on a level playing field basis. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the case of Toyota and Honda no Government aid is being paid.

Mr. Beaumomt-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most hon. Members welcome the Government's measures, particularly in relation to Honda? Has he noticed that only 10 days ago the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) was urging the Government to restrict the relentless use of cars? Better the sinner who repenteth, perhaps, but the hon. Gentleman repenteth because he thinks that it will help him with votes.

Mr. Newton: I had not noticed the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), but I am sure that he will reflect on what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Cryer: The Minister will recall that when the statement was made about the Honda plant being installed it was said that his Department would help British component manufacturers to obtain a share of the component capacity in that factory. What means will he use to do that to help Hepworth and Grandage in Bradford, the foremost piston and gudgeon pin manufacturer in Britain, to obtain some of that capacity? If Honda manufactures its own engines it will erode the opportunities for British component manufacturers.

Mr. Newton: The most helpful thing that we can do is to continue what we have been doing—creating a climate that assists the development of efficient and competitive enterprise and the opportunities for it.

Mr. Oppenheim: When we take into account the misguided Government-sponsored mergers of the 1960s, the huge subsidies and trade protection in the form of a pernicious gentlemen's agreement which limited the choice of cars for consumers, has not the British car industry already had far too much help from Government? The best help that the Government can give is not to cosset or guide it, but to tell it to go out and make products that the public want to buy.

Mr. Newton: We have created such a climate and that is why many people are coming here to make cars, thus strengthening our economy.

Financial Services (Regulation)

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the regulation of financial services.

Mr. Maude: I receive many representations on a variety of topics relating to the regulation of financial services. We carefully consider those which relate to the scope of the framework of the regulatory system, or the powers under the Financial Services Act 1986 which the Government retain. Those which relate to matters that are the responsibility of the Securities and Investments Board or of another regulatory authority are passed to the appropriate body.

Mr. Robinson: Does the Minister agree that there is enormous disquiet in the country, in the House and in the City in particular about the County NatWest-Blue Arrow-Manpower affair? Does he agree that when the public pays for a report it is entitled to see it? Is he aware that the reluctance of his Department to publish reports gives the impression that it is trying to operate a secret society instead of a major Department of State? Will he give an unequivocal undertaking to the House to publish the inspectors' report on the County NatWest-Blue Arrow-Manpower affair so that we may raise it, as appropriate, in the House before the recess?

Mr. Maude: We shall certainly publish the report as soon as we possibly can.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my hon. Friend monitoring the extent to which the Financial Services Act, which was designed to protect the consumer, is in fact resulting in the rapid disappearance of independent financial advisers and intermediaries who are rapidly being sucked into being

paid agents of given products? Will this not leave the public bereft of the protection of independent advice under the guise of protecting their interests?

Mr. Maude: I hope that it will not have that effect. I regard the existence of independent financial advisers who can give unbiased advice about which financial products customers should purchase as quite important. At the same time, it is important that people who hold themselves up as being competent to provide such advice should in fact be competent to do so. The operation of the Financial Services Act in the past 15 months has led to the withdrawal of some applicants to join FIMBRA, the regulatory body for intermediaries. Many of those were withdrawn because the applicants had stated on the application form things that were untrue. It is desirable that people who indulge in such behaviour should be prevented from offering their services to the public.

Mr. John Garrett: Will the Minister enlarge somewhat on his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson)? Will he confirm that the Secretary of State has received the inspector's report on the Blue Arrow Manpower takeover involving County NatWest and some other leading institutions? Does he propose to publish it before the recess, or does he propose to stifle discussion on the matter?

Mr. Maude: It is difficult to discuss the matter until it is published. I can confirm, as I think the hon. Gentleman already knows, that we have received the report and that we shall publish it as soon as it is proper to do so.

Mr. Beith: Is the Minister able to give an assurance that, under the terms of the Companies Bill, clients of insurance brokers will be as fully protected as all other clients of financial advisers?

Mr. Maude: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. There is no reason to suppose that what he suggests should not be the case.

Mr. McCrindle: My hon. Friend has mentioned the comparative success of the Financial Services Act 1986. Notwithstanding its many critics, does he agree that it is surprising that the one financial transaction that is undertaken by most of us at one time or another, which is perhaps the most important in a lifetime—obtaining a mortgage—is outside the ambit of the Financial Services Act 1986? Why does the Minister not give some consideration to future legislative change to embrace that within its sphere?

Mr. Maude: The lending of money is governed by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Financial Services Act 1986 was framed to regulate the provision of investment services and is designed to require all those who conduct investment business to be authorised. The borrowing of money on a mortgage is not an investment. Buying a house may be an investment, but borrowing the money is not. They are two different regimes, and it is proper that they should be. I see no reason to change that.

Trade Statistics

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries the United Kingdom is running a trade surplus.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): In the 12 months to May 1989, United Kingdom visible trade was in surplus with Australia, Spain, Ireland, Greece and Canada.

Mr. McAvoy: I thank the Minister for that answer. He listed five countries with which the United Kingdom has a trade surplus. Will he confirm that we are in deficit with the 19 other countries of the OECD?

Mr. Forth: I can confirm that the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic is correct.

Mr. Marlow: One of the slight problems that the Government have is the balance of payments deficit. As my hon. Friend knows, one of the bases for that problem is the predeliction of the British consumer sometimes to buy foreign goods when British goods are equally good, if not better. Although my hon. Friend himself may not wish to use them, will he tell the House what powers he and the Government have to encourage people to buy British goods?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is well aware—if anything, he knows it better than I do—that as a member of the European Community we are not able explicitly to encourage the purchase of British goods in the public sector. What private companies or concerns do to encourage customers to buy their products is entirely up to them. The Department and the Government generally have always emphasised that when a company makes a product of good quality at the right price, there is no reason why the public should not flock to buy it. One of the things that the Department has tried to do in various ways, and with many policies, has been to give as much support as possible to industry to make good products so as to encourage people to buy British.

Civil Research and Development

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to seek to increase the level of civil research and development spending by British industry.

Mr. Forth: The Government have created a favourable economic climate, which encourages companies to invest in research and development themselves. Industry increased its own funding of research and development by about 30 per cent. in real terms between 1983 and 1987.

Mr. Michie: Even taking that into account, at present British industry is enjoying record profits, mainly off the backs of the workers in industry and those who lost their jobs. Directors are giving themselves massive wage increases. Instead of putting money into research and development, they are putting it into their own pockets. That is quite different from what is happening with our major competitors abroad. They are putting a percentage of their output into R and D, which we are not and we are stagnating.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is wrong for two reasons. Largely because of the volume of noise—probably of approval for what I said—coming from Opposition Members, the hon. Gentleman did not hear me when I said that industry had increased its own funding of research and development by about 30 per cent.——

Ms. Clare Short: We do not believe the Government's statistics.

Mr. Forth: —in real terms between 1983 and 1987.

Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) call the Minister a liar.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct to draw that to my attention. I did not hear it. I hope that the hon. Lady did not say that, but if she did I am sure that she would be prepared to withdraw the remark.

Ms. Short: I said that we do not believe the Government's statistics. They lie to us all the time about statistics. That is my view and I think that that is allowed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Can the hon. Lady help us to get on and confirm that she did not accuse the Minister of being a liar? That is all that I ask her to do.

Ms. Short: I have just made it clear that I said that it was impossible to believe the Government's statistics because they lie to us all the time. I did not accuse the Minister of lying to us—I was referring to the barrage of statistics that we are given.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we can accept that and get on.

Mr. Forth: On the hon. Gentleman's other point. he claimed that we are behind other countries in civil research and development. We are ahead of some, at about the same level as some, and behind others. There is nothing wrong with that. It is hardly reasonable to expect us to be ahead of everybody.

Mr. Oppenheim: Does my hon. Friend agree that all this concentration on research and development can be misleading, bearing in mind that in the world's most successful economy—in Japan—private industry and the Japanese Government spend relatively little on R and D, preferring to concentrate their resources on buying in licences from others, improving their technology and concentrating resources on manufacturing production and marketing?

Mr. Forth: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. Interestingly, Japan is one country in the league table suggested by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) which invests less than we do. We must try to maximise the effectiveness of the research and development spend in this country. The Department of Trade and Industry has many programmes to encourage collaborative research between higher education and industry, between different companies and within the European Community framework. That is the way to proceed and it will be much more useful to consider the effectiveness of our research and development spend in those terms than to look at the overall figure.

Dr. Bray: I think that the Minister should check his figures. Since the German and Japanese industries spend 50 per cent. more of their own money on research and development as a proportion of their domestic product than British industry does, and since after 10 years of this Government British industry is plainly not increasing its research and development fast enough even to narrow, let alone close, the gap, with Germany and Japan, does the Minister agree that it is necessary for the Government to


increase their support and incentives for research and development rather than reduce them, as they have, from the peak level by 20 per cent. in real terms?

Mr. Forth: It would be particularly futile and not a good way to spend any of our time for me to bandy figures with the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). If he would care to write to me, I am perfectly prepared to indicate—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. These interruptions take up a lot of time and hon. Members want to ask questions.

Mr. Forth: If the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me I am perfectly prepared.

Hon. Members: This is question time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister should be able to complete his answer. If he intends to write a letter, perhaps we can progress more quickly.

Mr. Forth: If the hon. Gentleman would like to do as I have just suggested, I shall be prepared to give him the correct figures, which I am sure he would find reassuring. We believe and continue to believe that by having a low tax regime and an environment in which companies can be profitable, we leave the decision of how to invest in their hands, rather than confiscating money from companies through taxation and imposing our decisions on them about how they should invest. That surely makes sense in a vigorous, capitalist economy.

India

Sir George Young: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is satisfied with the volume of British exports to India; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Atkins: British exports to India have risen steadily over recent years reaching a record £1·1 billion in 1988. My Department is actively promoting trade with India and we expect to see further increases, including earnings from inward investment and joint venture collaborations.

Sir George Young: Is my hon. Friend aware that while many British firms are successful in winning export orders in India, some, sadly, face difficulties in getting paid because of delays in the Indian courts. Is he aware that one firm in my constituency won its court case against nonpayment in 1981, but has not been paid because of delays in hearing the subsequent appeal? In view of the delays and the impact on general exporting to India, what help can my hon. Friend and the Department extend to British companies which find themselves in that position?

Mr. Atkins: I am fully aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. He will know—or perhaps I can inform him if he does not know—that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is pursuing the case strongly with India. We understand that at the moment there are still some difficulties, but we shall pursue the case that he has raised—it concerns a product which is perhaps unmentionable here—with full vigour and in due course, no doubt, there will be a satisfactory result.

Inward Investment

Mr. Hind: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the levels of inward investment into the United Kingdom in 1988–89, the contribution of the Government by way of regional selective assistance and the number of jobs created.

Mr. Newton: According to the latest information available to the Invest in Britain Bureau, there were 277 inward investment decisions during the financial year 1988–89 which were expected to create 24,000 jobs. Many of these investments came without specific financial assistance, but during this period about 90 foreign-owned companies received offers of regional selective assistance, which is available only in Great Britain, worth around £140 million towards projects expected to create 18,000 jobs.

Mr. Hind: That is excellent news, and a great share of that investment is going to Lancashire, particularly Skelmersdale, with investment in Longulf from the Yemen and Garrett Air Research from the United States. Can my hon. Friend confirm that over the past five years, among EC partners, Britain has achieved one of the largest proportions of inward investment, which has created a large number of jobs? He will know that Ministers from his Department, from the Scottish Office and from the Welsh Office constantly tour the world advocating the British cause and attracting new investment and jobs.

Mr. Newton: I can confirm virtually everything that my hon. Friend has said. We estimate that over the past four years inward investment has created or safeguarded the better part of 200,000 jobs. A quarter of all United States and a third of all Japanese investment in the Community has come to the United Kingdom in recent years, and there have been some outstanding successes in my hon. Friend's part of the world. In addition to those that he mentioned, there is also Sanko Gosei, a leading Japanese manufacturer of moulds and plastics, which is to establish a £6 million plant employing 120 people at Skelmersdale.

Ms. Armstrong: Is the Minister content that regional assistance is now virtually exclusively through inward investment, certainly in the north-east? His decision last week and the incompetence shown by his Department in dealing with the European Community in the case of North-East Shipbuilders in Sunderland and the announcement last week about the closure of a factory in Newton Aycliffe mean that the 2·5 per cent. of firms in the north-east which are British based are being undermined even more. What does the Minister intend to do to ensure that he supports British investment in the regions?

Mr. Newton: Our purpose is to support the regeneration of the economic base of the north-east and other parts of the country. Nissan is achieving a great deal and providing additional opportunities for locally based industry, and Fujitsu is soon to arrive at Newton Aycliffe. The case for the success of what we are achieving makes itself.

Mr. Holt: I hope that my right hon. Friend will take no notice of the whingeing from the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong). Is not the north-east now booming far better than it has done for many years, and is that not reflected not only in the voices


of the chambers of commerce and industry, but even in those of trade union leaders in the north-east who are admitting that that is happening?

Mr. Newton: It is happening not only on Tyneside, but on Teesside, as my hon. Friend knows. I hope to have an opportunity later in the year to visit his part of the area.

Mr. Caborn: The Minister paints a glowing picture of the success story, but the figures for forward investment are rather different. Although that amounts to £7 billion, does not the export level of £15 billion in direct investment and £10 billion in investments in portfolios abroad show that there is a massive vote of no confidence?

Mr. Newton: No, I would not agree with a word of it. Historically, the United Kingdom has benefited from an open and liberal trading and capital movement system. It is clear that we are benefiting from that now.

Exports

Mr. Gill: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the volume of Britain's (a) food and (b) automobile exports in each of the past eight years.

Mr. Atkins: Between 1981 and 1988 the volume of United Kingdom exports of food increased by 34 per cent. and that of passenger motor cars by 25 per cent. The full set of figures will be included in the Official Report.

Mr. Gill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the food manufacturing industry employs more than 500,000 people, produces 6·4 per cent. of manufacturing industry output, and continues to serve the British economy extremely well?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is right. Since 1975, the industry has doubled its exports in volume terms. It makes a major and welcome contribution to our export achievements.

Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that in these two sectors, as in others, there will be a tremendous impact come 1992? Has he read the EEC report which states that 2 million jobs will be lost due to the effect of 1992? Some sources say that 200,000 of those jobs are in the United Kingdom. If the Minister does not know the answer, will he write to me?

Mr. Atkins: I have not yet had the pleasure of reading the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. When I do so, I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will be in when I do so.

Mr. Roger King: Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the work of improving the export performance of the British motor industry has been outstanding by companies which I know are dear to his heart? Leyland-DAF, through its van subsidiary, has dramatically expanded its export potential within the Community. As for the Rover Group, one third of its production goes overseas. Jaguar is well known for its exports both to the United States and to Europe. The news that Peugeot is to start exporting cars to Japan must be a clear sign that we are in the car business to stay.

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend never ceases to sing the praises of the motor industry, about which he speaks with such considerable authority—[Interruption.] Unlike many

Opposition Members, my right hon. and hon. Friends know what they are talking about, usually from personal experience. My hon. Friend is rght to draw the attention of the House to the success story of the motor industry. Following are the figures:


Exports of food passenger motor cars



Volume indices 1985=100
Overseas trade statistics basic



Food1
Passenger motor cars2


1981
83·5
100·0


1982
82·9
94·2


1983
94·5
86·1


1984
96·5
82·9


1985
100·0
100·0


1986
109·5
93·8


1987
116·5
120·6


1988
112·1
125·3

Sources:

1 MAFF

2 DTI

Financial Services (Regulation)

Mr. Eadie: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the regulation of financial services.

Mr. Maude: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) in response to question 7.

Mr. Eadie: Given the answer that the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West when he expressed great doubts about the working of the regulations, will he accept that an error was made when the regulations for the City were not made statutory? Does he agree that there is an abundance of evidence that when Governments meddle with legislation and make regulations permissive rather than mandatory, they find themselves in trouble? The Government are running into trouble, and the Minister should make that confession to the House.

Mr. Maude: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard correctly the supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West, which had nothing to do with the Financial Services Act 1986 but related to a different kind of investigation under a different piece of legislation. He did not express any views about the efficacy or otherwise of the Financial Services Act. I can reassure the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on the issue of whether financial service regulation should be statutory. His question can be answered satisfactorily—it is indeed statutory.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider the EEC proposals for a single banking licence? Would not the creation within the Community of the largest unified market in the world for banking services present the City with considerable opportunities?

Mr. Maude: It undoubtedly would. We hope that the Community will move swiftly to complete the single market in life insurance and in investment services as well.


The banking directive, to which my hon. Friend refers, will make the Community a more open market for banking than the United States.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that despite the authorisation requirements of the Financial Services Act, a number of the big, rogue fish who were responsible for running companies—a number of which had to close—are now surfacing in other guises in various parts of the City? Why are they not being cleaned out of the City, especially as FIMBRA, the Securities Association and a number of self-regulatory bodies are cleaning out their employees, who were only taking instructions from those rogue fish?

Mr. Maude: Since the Financial Services Act came into force it has been illegal to carry on investment business without being authorised by the Securities and Investments Board or one of the regulatory bodies. It is impossible for any of those to whom the hon. Gentleman referred to operate a legal investment business without being authorised. Anyone with a record of misbehaviour can be prevented from operating. If the hon. Gentleman knows of anyone who is operating without authorisation, I should be grateful if he would supply me with details immediately.

Mr. Nelson: Does my hon. Friend agree that despite the overtures from the Opposition, the Government have struck the right balance between total free licence for the City and total state regulation? While the Government cannot anticipate future needs, I am sure that they will respond as necessary. Is it not true that experience both of companies legislation and of financial services legislation has already shown that the Government's middle-way approach of encouraging and supporting the self-regulatory process in the City has been a great success and should be continued?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is right. It is essential that financial services legislation has full statutory backing, but it is equally essential that it should be flexible and responsive because the regulatory bodies need to be sufficiently fleet of foot to keep abreast of the changes in the market place.

Mr. Gould: May I ask the Minister a question that he has ducked twice already? Will he publish the County NatWest report before the end of the Session and in time for the House to question Ministers on it?

Mr. Maude: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman can find it in himself to quibble with the reply that I have already given him. I said that we would publish the report as soon as it was proper to do so. It would be a remarkable proposition to suggest that we publish it before it is proper to do so.

Mr. John Marshall: The financial services sector takes a great interest in the Barlow Clowes affair. When does my hon. Friend expect to receive the ombudsman's report on that?

Mr. Maude: I cannot do that because I do not answer for the ombudsman. He must conduct his investigation in the way that he thinks proper. I am sure that he will want to complete his investigation as soon as possible.

Rain Forest Trees (Bournemouth Beach)

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consideration he is giving to the importation of 800 tropical rain forest trees for the protection of the beach at Bournemouth.

Mr. Newton: There are at present no controls on the import of tropical timber into the European Community. It is therefore for the judgment of the local authority concerned whether or not a purchase of such timber is appropriate.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister aware that Bournemouth needs 50 new groynes, which requires three acres of rain forest trees? Is he further aware that Bournemouth has already consumed 2,000 acres or more, an area the size of Epping Forest? Is it not folly to destroy the ecosystem of rain forests and leave them to global warming, so that the sea defences deteriorate and more protection is needed for coastal defences? Should there not be a policy of using metal or concrete groynes rather than mahogany groynes?

Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and will ensure that it is considered by the relevant Ministers. The key issue is that we do everything possible to ensure the proper management of the rain forests. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has recently been discussing that matter with the Brazilian Government. We are also seeking to make progress in a number of ways through the International Tropical Timber Organisation. The hon. Gentleman and the House may rest assured that the British Government will continue to do all that they can to achieve that broad, essential objective.

Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot mummify the forests but should manage them on a sustainable basis, which may occasionally necessitate felling mature trees?

Mr. Newton: That is another way of conveying the point that I tried to make. We are trying to focus on the proper management of the forests.

Trade Statistics

Mr. Allen: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the countries within the European Community with which the United Kingdom is in a trade deficit.

Mr. Forth: In the 12 months to May, United Kingdom visible trade was in deficit with West Germany, Netherlands, Italy, France, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg and Portugal.

Mr. Allen: What do the Government intend to do about that?

Mr. Forth: The Government have in place a number of policies to make industry even more aware of the opportunities presented by the single European market and the 1992 campaign. We are following up our spectacular success in increasing awareness with a number of policies aimed at persuading British industry—only British industry, and no one else, can affect our trade figures—of the potential offered by the single European market and the markets beyond, so that industry can gird its loins and sell British products throughout the


Community and beyond. We are confident that it will do so. In the three months to May, for example, exports to the Community grew strongly—by 8 per cent. over the previous three months—while imports fell by 1 per cent., so we are already on the right track.

Mr. Curry: Is not British private sector well ahead of the field in investing in manufacturing and service bases in the Community? Is not that the logic of the Community, and will not the profits made overseas be turned into dividends for the benefit of shareholders and workers in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Forth: Yes. My hon. Friend, who has unparalleled knowledge of such matters as a result of the service that he has given to the European Parliament over the past 10 years, is correct to point out that Britain has already made moves to take seriously the opportunities and challenges that the Community market presents. By investing throughout the continent, Britain is placing itself in a strong position to meet that challenge as we move towards the fulfilment of the single market.

Mr. McAllion: Is the Minister aware that Britain's deficit in visible trade with the rest of the EEC has increased fivefold since the Conservative Government came to power in 1979? Does he think that that increased deficit is a product of what he described earlier as a free and vigorous capitalist economy?

Mr. Forth: In a very real sense, any deficit is obviously a product of a free and liberal trading regime. It is always up to the wealth creators and those in trade and in business in any one economy to make the best of the trading opportunities available to them. I have attempted to describe how seriously we take those opportunities and what we are doing about them. I stress again that it is not the Government but business that can improve the trade position. We are confident that the business community will do so.

Breweries (Tied Loans)

Mr. Stern: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the future availability of tied loans from breweries to clubs and voluntary associations.

Mr. Maude: As my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced in his statement on 10 July, we do not propose to prohibit new tied loan agreements. However, we intend to impose the requirement on national brewers that tied loans should be restricted to beer sales and must be capable of termination by the borrower without penalty on no more than three months' notice.

Mr. Stern: I thank my hon. Friend for reiterating the welcome announcement of our right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State in confirming that the traditional source of finance available to sports clubs and to other clubs and associations in all our constituencies will remain open.

Mr. Maude: We took the view that tied loans are a particularly useful source of finance for clubs. The only danger arises when clubs or pubs are unable to repay the loan without penalty, and we are taking steps to ensure that that cannot happen.

Business in the Community

Mr. Favell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives of Business in the Community; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Newton: I attended the Business in the Community president's committee on 7 March. In addition, I regularly meet representatives of BiC and its member companies in the course of carrying out my duties.

Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the village, town or city in which a business or industry operates depends very much on the contribution that that business or industry is prepared to make to the management of schools, the training of unemployed people and the cleanliness and general quality of the environment?

Mr. Newton: Yes, I agree. That is one of the reasons why the Department's enterprise initiative, which is harnessing and encouraging all those elements, makes such an important contribution to the development of our towns and cities.

Local Government Finance

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the local authority grant settlement for 1990–91 for England.
As the House will know, next April sees the introduction of the new local government finance system. The community charge will replace domestic rates, there will be a uniform national business rate, and there will be a new grant system. Those reforms bring greater accountability to authorities' spending decisions. To give local authorities the maximum time to plan their budgets, I am today announcing the Government's proposals for aggregate external finance—that is, the amount of support that will be available to local authorities in England from Government grants and business rates. I am also announcing my assessment of total standard spending and the community charge for standard spending.
In the current year, 1989–90, English local authorities have budgeted for spending of about £30·3 billion. That is £1·2 billion more than the Government had provided for in the last RSG settlement. It is £1·9 billion more than the total of grant-related expenditure assessments, the Government's assessment of the amount which authorities needed to spend. Local authorities have budgeted to increase spending by 9 per cent. compared with 1988–89, which is more than the rate of inflation. Over the last four years local authority expenditure will have increased by 13 per cent. in real terms. This is excessive.
In assessing the amount of revenue spending that is appropriate for 1990–91—known as total standard spending—I have taken account of what can reasonably be afforded. I have also taken into account the amount that authorities are spending now, and the local authority associations' views about the pressures for increased spending next year. My right hon. Friend the Minister and I discussed that with them in the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 12 July. I have had regard to the continued scope for local authorities to make substantial savings through controlling their payroll costs, increased efficiency, competitive tendering and, in some cases, by eliminating wasteful and unnecessary activities. I understand that the value-for-money improvements now identified by the Audit Commission could be worth more than £900 million annually, and only £350 million of them have been achieved.
Under the new system, total standard spending is my assessment of the amount appropriate for authorities to spend in providing services. I propose that this total should be £32·8 billion. On a comparable basis, allowing for technical changes such as the ring-fencing of the housing revenue account and others, that is £1·2 billion more than authorities have budgeted to spend this year. It is a significant real increase on the amount that the Government assessed authorities needed to spend this year.
I propose that the aggregate amount of support that will be available from Government grants and business rates will be £22·9 billion. In addition, I intend to provide a further £200 million of support for two specific purposes, which I shall describe shortly. That makes a total for aggregate external finance of £23·1 billion in support of revenue spending—£1·8 billion more than in the current

year, an increase of 8·5 per cent. I shall announce in the autumn how the £23·1 billion is to be divided between standard spending grant, the various specific grants, and the amount likely to be raised from business rates. This implies that if local authorities budget to spend in line with our assessment, just under £10 billion will fall to be raised from community charges. That corresponds to a community charge for standard spending of about £275, broadly the same as the existing average rate bill per adult; £275 is the level of charge which, apart from the safety net, each charging authority could set if spending is in line with the Government's standard spending assessment.
The actual charge in each area in the first year will, however, depend on the transitional arrangements, and the level at which local authorities choose to spend.
As the House will know, we have proposed that there should be a four-year transitional safety net in order to phase in the impact of the new system. The objective is that people living in areas which traditionally have had low rate bills will have a period in which to adjust to the greater demands on them. I believe it is right that those people should have some protection. But, as originally proposed, that protection had to be paid for by the gainers postponing receipt of virtually all their gains.
I have therefore looked again at the safety net arrangements in the light of responses to our earlier proposals, with a view to achieving a better balance between the interests of gainers and losers. It is wrong that areas which have suffered under the present unfair system of resource equalisation should have to wait a further year before seeing any relief. Equally, I think it fair that areas which stand ultimately to have higher average bills under the new system should be expected to make some adjustment from the first year.
I am therefore now proposing new arrangements. In those areas in which charge payers can expect to see their bills falling, nearly half of the gain will come through immediately. To allow this, I propose that losses of grant support equivalent to up to £25 per adult should be allowed to feed through in the first year. This will allow those who gain from the reform of the finance system to see between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. of their gain come through to them in the first year, although the precise figure will not be known until the autumn. In this way we can begin to move more quickly towards the position we shall have once the new arrangements are fully in force. As in my earlier proposal, the maximum amount of gain deferred will be £75 per adult, but whereas before this applied to a significant number of authorities, it will now only apply to a handful of the largest gainers. In most cases the gain deferred will be significantly less.
I turn to my two proposals for extra protection for certain areas.
First, there are some authorities where, due to the historical accident of low rateable values, the adjustment to the full community charge is generally greater proportionately than in other areas. I therefore intend to provide extra protection of up to £25 per adult for charging authorities in England where the average domestic rateable value per hereditament is £130 or less and where the introduction of the new system results in a loss. This means that in these areas there will be no loss. Authorities with average domestic rateable values per hereditament between £130 and £150 will receive support


on a tapering scale. This support will cost roughly £100 million. I will publish in the Official Report a list of authorities which may qualify under these criteria.

Dr. John Cunningham: Today?

Mr. Ridley: Yes, today.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has today announced that the Government will be making available a transitional grant to inner-London boroughs and to the City which will be taking over education responsibilities from ILEA on 1 April. The cost of this extra grant will be £100 million in 1990–91. It will take some time for the boroughs to eliminate wasteful expenditure inherited from ILEA. This grant will provide transitional protection for their charge payers while the savings are realised. Both these proposals will require minor legislative changes, which we will seek to enact in the Local Government and Housing Bill.
Compared to the original proposals for the safety net, these revised arrangements will enable much quicker progress towards the full introduction of the new local government finance system. A large percentage of the gains will come through to gaining areas immediately. In inner London, where community charges threaten to be highest, the proposed specific grant will help authorities to keep down charges. There will be special protection for areas with low rateable values and the maximum extra that local councils in any losing authority need impose on their local chargepayers works out at only 50p per week per adult.
In response to a parliamentary question, I am placing in the Library today illustrative charges showing how a safety net on this basis would have operated in 1989–90 had the new system been in force now. These illustrative charges reflect authorities' own 1989–90 spending decisions and show what the community charge might have been in each area. I have also exemplified the effect of a system of capital value rates and local income tax. Copies of these tables are also available in the Vote Office.
I shall be discussing these proposals with the local authority associations in September. I will bring forward full proposals for the settlement in the autumn, including details of the methodology which we propose to use to distribute standard spending grant between authorities.
Under these proposals, if local authorities control their spending and improve their efficiency, the average community charge need not be higher than about £275, and could be lower. We recognise the particular problems that some authorities face through the change to the new system, and we are providing extra help targeted on these areas. But it will be for local authorities to set their budgets, and for community charge payers to judge whether the amount they are asked to pay is justified.

Following is the list of areas potentially benefiting from extra protection:


Authorities where the average domestic rateable value per hereditament on 1 April 1989 was less than £150



Domestic rateable value per hereditament (£)


Burnley
103


Pendle
105


Wear Valley
113


Hyndburn
113

Domestic rateable value per hereditament (£)


Barrow in Furness
115


Teesdale
116


Calderdale
116


Easington
117


Kirklees
119


Barnsley
120


Copeland
121


Blackburn
122


Rossendale
123


Derwentside
125


Kingston upon Hull
127


Bradford
128


Torridge
129


Sedgefield
129


Allerdale
130


Eden
131


Bolsover
132


Wansbeck
133


Rotherham
135


Wakefield
135


Boothferry
136


Berwick-upon-Tweed
136


York
136


Gateshead
136


Sunderland
137


Ashfield
138


Sheffield
138


Carlisle
140


Doncaster
140


East Yorkshire
141


Craven
142


Rochdale
142


Hartlepool
143


South Tyneside
143


Scarborough
144


North Devon
146


Penwith
147


Tameside
147


Kerrier
148


Oldham
148


Leeds
148


Lincoln
149


Mansfield
149

Dr. Cunningham: The most important aspect of the statement by the Secretary of State is what he has left out. He has made no decision about, for example, the implications of national business tax and he has kept the House and the business community in the dark about it—so much for his plea in Newcastle upon Tyne last week about having debates on the basis of the facts.
The Secretary of State has introduced a new terminology to describe what he is doing-a kind of Ridleyspeak—but everything that he has announced today can be undermined at a later date by his decisions on the needs assessment for every local authority in England. He has allowed himself the flexibility to adjust those assessments by very large amounts. For example, on one set of figures in front of the Secretary of Slate, Birmingham needs £627 million to provide a standard level of finance—that is, to the Government's standards—but another set of figures for the same city shows Birmingham needing £750 million to provide a standard level of provision. Such latitude exists for every local authority, deliberately to allow the Secretary of State to exercise the


kind of political control that he wishes—or, perhaps more accurately, his successor wishes-to exercise over local government finance.
Contrary to what the Secretary of State has said, is it not the case that today's statement announces a major cut in Government support for local services? On the new calculation basis, total standard spending this year is £31·6 billion. The Secretary of State used old figures and the old basis. With inflation at 8·5 per cent., that means that local government needs £34·1 billion for the coming financial year, just to maintain the existing real level of spending. However, the Secretary of State is providing only for £32·8 billion—a major shortfall of £1·3 billion, simply taking inflation into account, never mind wage increases and other increases. The Secretary of State misleads the House when he describes that as a significant real increase. It is a major shortfall in what is likely to be required. His statement today increases the total by only 3·8 per cent. in real terms, which is less than half the current rate of inflation.
The Secretary of State says that local government expenditure increases are excessive, yet teachers' pay and police salaries are under the control of Ministers, not local government. Are salaries and wages to be funded in local government on the basis of a 3·8 per cent. increase, with inflation at 8·5 per cent.? Will the Secretary of State tell the House what the Government's intentions are in that regard? After 10 years of these policies, central Government expenditure has risen by 23·8 per cent. while local government expenditure has risen on the same basis by just 19 per cent. If any expenditure increases are excessive on that basis, it is central Government's not local government's.
If expenditure goes up simply by the amount the Secretary of State is talking about, where does he recommend that local authorities should make cuts? Should it be in employment, in the quality of services, or in the extension of services? How does he expect local authorities to make up a shortfall of over £1 billion with inflation running at its present rate? I am sure that the Secretary of State understands the reality, but I ask him whether he does. Inflation alone will add almost £40 per annum to each individual poll tax bill and it will be the Government, not local councils, who are responsible. How can the statement bring greater accountability to local government decision taking when over 70 per cent. of all funding is in the control of the Secretary of State? It is not in the control of local authorities and their committees. As he controls that level of expenditure, the major accountability for what is happening rests with him and his Department.
Why has the Secretary of State given no information on the likely level of the national business tax? Is it because of the already extensive fear and concern among small business people about the implications of that and the revaluation? How does he expect small business people to plan ahead without some clear idea about the burden of this new tax on their businesses?
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to talk about average poll tax, but in the real world thousands of families face massive increases in what they are likely to pay. It was, after all, the Secretary of State who asked candidly why a duke should pay more than a dustman. He

is planning major increases for the majority of households. If one considers my own constituency as an example, the real likely poll tax in Copeland in the next financial year will be about £350 per person. The Secretary of State says that he is expecting people to pay only an additional 50p a week. In a four-adult family, that is £100 a year and in a five-adult family, it is £125 a year. How does he think that people on low incomes will cope even with those minimum levels of increase in their taxes? The Secretary of State is not living in the real world, and he knows it.
The real explanation for the statement and its deliberate obfuscation is simple. The Secretary of State knows that his Back Benchers, the overwhelming majority of whom voted for the legislation in the first place, are now panicking at its likely impact in their constituencies. They are enmeshed in their own ramshackle safety net arrangements. On the one hand, there is not enough in the way of safety net protection—in the north-west in particular—and, on the other, some Conservative Members are complaining about the likely bills that their constituents will face to fund the safety netting in the first place. It would be far better for everyone—although perhaps too late to save the Secretary of State—if he took the legislation away altogether instead of announcing further tinkering with it.

Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order of some substance. We have before us a statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "We have not."] We have listened to a statement which touches upon every constituency in the land. The document from the Department of the Environment giving the illustrative charges has been available to a handful of hon. Members, but it is not available to the rest of us, and apologies have already been given in the Vote Office. It may be too late to do anything about it now, on this important occasion, but I should like to protest on behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Perhaps a lesson can be learned from this experience. Each of us wants to know how our constituencies are affected by the statement and by the criticism made of it. Can we be taken into Minister's confidence?

Mr. Speaker: As far as I am aware, the document is available in the Vote Office—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. I shall have the matter looked into.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should not the sitting be suspended so that every hon. Member may have access to the document? When I went to the Vote Office, I was told that some hon. Members had taken a number of copies away and handed them out on the Conservative Benches, although it seems that many Conservative Members do not have copies nevertheless. Will you, Sir, suspend the sitting so that we may all look at the document? Then we can reasonably debate this matter. The present state of affairs is most unreasonable.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Further to the point of order. Mr. Speaker. The statement of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was not accurate. A number of Conservative Members went to the Vote Office to get copies. The Vote Office will not give hon. Members more than one copy each and it has—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order?

Mr. Devlin: My point of order is that the Vote Office will hand out only one copy to each Member. A number of hon. Members are sharing, and no more copies are available.

Mr. John Battle: When I asked the Vote Office for a copy of the document I was told that I was being given the last copy. There were no other copies available in the Vote Office and it seemed that there were not enough for every hon. Member to have a copy. It should also be placed on record that some of the figures to which the Secretary of State referred are in the Library but we cannot check the illustrative figures in the Library against the figures in the document.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the Secretary of State can help us by explaining why copies are not available for all hon. Members.

Mr. Ridley: I apologise to the House. I thought that I had made arrangements for adequate copies of the document to be placed in the Vote Office. I now understand that the original supply was insufficient, and that reinforcements are coming hotfoot to the Vote Office. I apologise for the fact that there seems to have been a defect in the administrative arrangements.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that arrangements have broken down on a most important issue that affects all the people of England and Wales, and given that we cannot discuss the matter properly, may I ask you to suspend the sitting for half an hour?

Mr. Speaker: Clearly the House is in difficulty about this. We have another statement to follow. I believe that is would be sensible to take that statement first and then return to this one when, I hope, copies of the document will be available.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest we get on with the other statement.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we are taking, unusually, the second statement now, may we have copies of the statement made by the Secretary of State of the Environment distributed to hon. Members because, as usual, while the Secretary of State was speaking, copies of his statement, which were not available to hon. Members, were being distributed in the Press Gallery. I object to different treatment being given to members of the Press Gallery. We should have copies of the statement on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker: That is not possible, but when we return to the matter I hope that the document that some Members have, but other Members do not have, will be available.

Legal Profession

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): With the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a statement made today in another place by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, which is as follows.
When I published the Government's Green Papers on the legal profession, which were designed to remove any unnecessary restrictions in the provision of legal services, I undertook to make a statement to the House before the summer recess. I have received over 2,000 responses to the Green Paper, and held discussions with many of those directly involved. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who helped in that process. All the points which were put to me in writing or orally have been carefully considered. The Government are today publishing a White Paper containing their own proposals for legislation.
The Government propose to introduce legislation which will set out broad objectives designed to further the interests of the administration of justice, to increase access to justice and to extend the range of those possessing rights of audience before the courts. All those involved in granting rights of audience will be required by the statute to have regard to these objectives. An independent statutory advisory committee on education and conduct will give advice on the achievement of these objectives. Again there will be a statutory requirement for all those involved in granting rights of audience to have regard to this advice. The advisory committee will have a membership broadly as set out in the Green Paper, but, in order to emphasise its independence from the Government, it will have the power to appoint its own staff.
The Government propose that both the Bar and the Law Society should have a statutory entitlement to grant rights of audience to their members in all courts. All those called to the Bar should receive rights of audience in all courts. On qualification, solicitors will continue to receive rights of audience equivalent to those they now possess. Solicitors will, however, also be eligible to progress to rights of audience in some or all of the higher courts, if they have achieved the necessary standards of competence and conform to appropriate rules of conduct.
All rules relating to the competence and conduct of advocates will continue to be made by the professional bodies, but, building on the current arrangements for the Law Society's rules, all changes in such rules will in the future require the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and each of the four heads of division, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor. All these will he required to have regard to the statutory objectives and the advisory committee's advice. Other professional bodies might subsequently be empowered by Order in Council, approved in draft by both Houses of Parliament, to grant rights of audience in particular classes of business in particular courts, provided their competence and conduct requirements satisfied the Lord Chancellor and the four heads of division.
Similar arrangements will apply for the future to any professional body which might want to have the right to


issue legal process or to take steps in proceedings on behalf of others. These rights are at present reserved by statute to solicitors.
The importance of ensuring that both a wide range of barristers generally and an adequate choice of specialist barristers are available to take cases in court requires that the Bar should continue to be able to make its own rules about partnerships and multidisciplinary practices. Considerable concern was expressed in the responses to the consultation that removing such rules might threaten the future viability of the Bar. The Government attach great importance to the continued existence of a vigorous independent Bar.
Solicitors, who are also frequently involved in litigation, ought to be treated on an equal basis to barristers. The Government therefore propose to remove the existing statutory restrictions which prevent solicitors from forming multidisciplinary partnerships, but to provide that the Law Society will henceforth be allowed to make its own rules about partnerships and multidisciplinary practices.
Except in so far as such rules are related to advocacy and the conduct of litigation and are approved as necessary in the interests of justice by the Lord Chancellor and the heads of division, they will be subject to review under the new restrictive trade practices legislation proposed in the Department of Trade and Industry White Paper "Opening Markets: New Policy On Restrictive Trade Practices". The links between the two sets of proposals, including an extended role for the Director General of Fair Trading, are set out in the two White Papers.
The Government propose also to remove the present statutory obstacles to multi-national practices and to ensure that lawyers from Scotland and Northern Ireland will have the same rights in England and Wales, and vice versa, as lawyers from other European jurisdictions will have under Community directives.
The Government propose to legislate, as the Green Paper suggested, to replace the provisions in the Building Societies Act 1986 with a power to allow the Lord Chancellor to recognise professional bodies as competent to authorise their members as authorised practitioners to undertake conveyancing for their borrowers. Conveyancing by such practitioners will be subject to the existing requirement that it is supervised by a solicitor or licensed conveyancer; and every such authorised practitioner will be required to offer its clients a personal interview with the solicitor or licensed conveyancer having conduct of the transaction. Throughout the transaction, that solicitor or licensed conveyancer will have a paramount duty towards the borrower.
There will be a detailed code of conduct laid down by statutory instrument by which authorised practitioners will have to abide. Moreover, authorised practitioners will be prohibited from providing conveyancing services to both seller and buyer in the same transaction, except in very limited circumstances and from providing estate agency services to the seller and conveyancing services to the buyer in the same transaction. Making the provision of one service conditional upon taking another, so-called "tying-in", in connection with house purchase will be

prohibited. Authorised practitioners will be required to charge for their conveyancing services on a basis that is not less than the true cost of providing them.
The arrangements are designed to provide adequate protection for individual clients and also to ensure that all those who want to provide conveyancing services, whether small firms of solicitors or large financial institutions, can compete on fair terms.
Litigation will be permitted to be undertaken on the speculative basis now allowed in Scotland. It will also become possible in such cases for there to be a moderate percentage uplift on the ordinary taxed costs otherwise payable, within a maximum to be prescribed by statutory instrument. There should, however, be no introduction of any kind of contingency fee linked to a proportion of the damages received.
I have dealt with these issues in particular because they are those about which there has been most public comment. These proposals, and others, are presented in more detail in the White Paper. Taken together, these proposals, which are an integral part of the Government's wider programme of improving access to justice, represent an appropriate balance between the encouragement of competition and the maintenance of standards in the administration of justice and the provision of legal services. I believe that those proposals provide a satisfactory framework for the future.

Mr. John Morris: It would be churlish of me not to welcome some of the results of more mature consideration by the Lord Chancellor of his original proposals which bore the mark of excessive haste and of being dragooned by the Department of Trade and Industry.
My first criticism is about the failure of the Government to provide time in the House to debate the proposals. Let the Government never forget that it is this House that has the right to be heard before the granting of Supply. Will the Leader of the House provide time for such a debate in the overspill, and obviously before a Bill is published, since otherwise everyone will have been consulted except the House?
I welcome the distancing of the Lord Chancellor from being involved, even indirectly, in the licensing of advocates. The independence of the staff of the advisory committee is a step forward, but will the members of the committee still not be the nominees of a political Minister? I take it that the advisory committee will have a power only of recommendation.
In the interests of freedom of choice, I welcome the Lord Chancellor's retreat from the concept of multi-disciplinary practices to include barristers. Has he done that because of the recognition of the fears of thousands of solicitors that they would be at the mercy of the City mega-firms which would have barrister partners? Would that have meant less and not more choice for the consumer?
What does the White Paper mean when it says:
With exceptions"—
important ones, I hope—
the new restrictive trade practices legislation may lead the Bar and the Law Society to implement a number of the changes canvassed in the Green Papers.
Will the Attorney-General please be specific: is this a back-door means of imposing parts of the Green Papers?
On conveyancing, if solicitors and licensed conveyancers are subject to discipline, which could mean striking


off, will the supervision of other conveyancers be undertaken in a similar situation with the same degree of force and necessary discipline? The White Paper uses a pretty phrase when it says that the Government's aim
is to make justice more available to all.
They disingenuously claim in the Green Paper that contingency fees would be one of the means of providing an additional avenue to the courts. The gravest indictment of both papers is the failure of the Government to grapple with the problems of legal aid. The system is crumbling, and is becoming less available to the many and, strangely, legal aid practitioners are paid less than the market rate.
Is the Attorney-General aware of any hon. Member who has not had the experience of constituents at his surgery with cases due to be heard at tribunals and no representation? Such cases involve mobility allowance, constant attendance allowance and unemployment and industrial benefit. Thousands of pounds are involved, and if the cases are successful they could change the whole quality of life of hundreds, if not thousands, of our constituents.
The Government have given fortunes to their supporters. If the Government's broad objective to provide access to justice means anything, why should legal aid, tribunals and law centres be ignored?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his refusal to be churlish about the many things that he welcomed in the White Paper. He welcomed the insistence and emphasis upon the independence of the advisory committee. He asked whether the nominees would be the nominees of a political Minister. The advisory committee is independent. Its staff will be appointed by the committee in order to meet the anxieties expressed in the consultation lest the advisory committee should be the creature of the Lord Chancellor. The members will be nominated by the Lord Chancellor, but after very wide consultations and with the intention of securing a wide spread.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman welcomed the provisions relating to multidisciplinary partnerships between barristers and solicitors. Much anxiety was expressed about this during consultations. The fear was expressed that it would lead to the loss of independence of the Bar and to the erosion of the Bar. As the House has already heard, the Government attach great importance to the maintenance of a vigorous, independent Bar. Therefore the Government felt, having listened to the consultation, that it was right that they should leave it to the professional bodies concerned to decide whether there ought to be, or whether it is proper for there to be, multidisciplinary partnerships. I believe that the House will welcome this reliance on the professional bodies.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned restrictive trade practices legislation. Perhaps he and other hon. Members will wish to look at chapter 11 of the White Paper when they have more time than is at present available. The Bar's and the Law Society's current rules and codes will remain in force when the legislation proposed in the White Paper is implemented until either the professional bodies choose to amend them or to take some other step.
The remainder of both professions' regulatory frameworks will therefore be subject to the restrictive trade practices prohibition in the normal way. It will be up to the

professional body concerned to amend those rules which restrict or distort competition, or to apply for exemptions in the transitional period which the legislation will contain.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman ended with a reference to legal aid. I think that it is right to remind the House that the Government have already brought forward proposals for legal aid. They are committed to an effective system of legal aid for those of poor or modest means. This matter was discussed extensively during debates last Session on what became the Legal Aid Act 1988 which set up the Legal Aid Board and a new statutory framework. These proposals deal with the separate question of the structure of the profession which will deliver legal services, including those services which are delivered on legal aid.
I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's general welcome of the White Paper and the evidence it gives of heeding the results of the consultation.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Of course we want time to consider the proposals which appear in very small print, but I thank my right hon. and learned Friend and the Lord Chancellor for having had the further considerations which at first we were not promised, because the Green Papers were going to be a White Paper. I thank them for taking on board a number of representations.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the extension of the right of audience to solicitors, which is now made possible by the White Paper, will not eventually result in the fusion of the legal profession and the driving up of legal costs that we all want to avoid? Will he also assure the House that the removal of the near-monopoly on conveyancing by village solicitors will not further dry up the availability of legal services in rural areas, which is something all of us are concerned about?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that judges will not be enticed into the contentious situation where they have to decide whether solicitors should have the right of audience, in an atmosphere where the wrong kind of attitude will prevail with regard to our judicial leaders?
Finally, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that contingency fees, as proposed in the White Paper, will not lead us rapidly down the slippery slope, where legal fees escalate through the roof as in the case in the United States of America, and where people cannot be sure that they will always get fair and high-quality justice?

The Attorney-General: I omitted to answer one of the questions of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has heard what has been said, which is all the answer that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can expect.
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his general welcome for the proposals of the White Paper. He asked whether the proposals would lead to fusion. I can assure him that they will not. I said that the Government attach great importance to the continuance of a vigorous and independent Bar. The White Paper creates a structure so that rights of audience which are conferred by the professional bodies shall be subject to rules affecting training, competence and conduct, which will require the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and the senior judiciary who are both required by statute to take heed of the advice given by the independent advisory committee. Therefore, if the proposals lead to the end which my hon.


and learned Friend fears, it will be only as a result of the operation of the structure which I have described, and will defeat the Government's declared intention that we should continue to have a vigorous and independent Bar.
My hon. and learned Friend also asked about the network of solicitors. There is great value in the maintenance of that network throughout the country. The changes which have been made to the Green Paper proposals, with the special safeguards written into the provision of conveyancing services, should go a long way to meeting the genuine fears that the financial institutions would present unfair competition.
My hon. and learned Friend suggested that judges might be enticed into acting in a way which was other than conscientious. I do not believe that that was more than a rhetorical flourish on his part. There can be no danger of what he feared from contingency fees when we take account of the fact that all that is proposed is conditional fees of the kind which have applied for a long time in Scotland.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Attorney-General accept that access to justice is not only the right of the citizen, but the Government have a duty to provide it? These measures do little to improve the scandalous position whereby between 10 million and 13 million people in this country are unable to enjoy rights of access because of the legal aid rules, and only those who are extremely poor or extremely wealthy are able to enjoy access to the courts.
Does he agree that the structural proposals will not reassure those who are concerned that the independent, expert specialist Bar will be available generally, on the cab rank principle, to those who may have need of those services in the future and who see the Government's move as a step towards the withering away of the Bar? Does the Attorney-General recognise that, although he introduced the Scottish role on contingency fees, it did not resolve the problem of access in Scotland and will not do so south of the border?

The Attorney-General: I dealt with the relevance of legal aid in answer to a question from the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). It bears repeating that the Government are committed to an effective system of legal aid to those of poor or modest means, and that the Legal Aid Act 1988 represents the Government's response to the needs of the moment. The Government do not intend that these proposals should lead to the withering away of the independent Bar and I think that when the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to read the White Paper in detail he will be reassured.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this is a thoroughly sensible response to the sensible comments made on the Green Paper, particularly because it preserves the independence of the Bar and the judiciary, which is important, while at the same time ensuring that they have regard for the proper administration of justice? In particular, it is welcome that, as I understand it, my right hon. and learned Friend has entirely rejected the odious United States contingency fee racket. Will he bear this point in mind? If solicitors are encouraged by the changes to move into banks, building societies or, even more

undesirably, estate agents' offices, there will be, particularly in rural areas, a diminution of the sort of general legal services that should be available to people in those parts.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said at the outset of his remarks. The key to this exercise has been the Government's desire to balance the need to encourage competition with the need to maintain standards in the administration of justice and the provision of legal services. This is not an easy balance to strike, but I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has got it right.
As to contingency fees, I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the change from the Green Papers, and I believe that there will be general approval—the consultation was strong on this—that we shall go not for contingency fees, as they are properly understood, but for the much more limited conditional fee applied in Scotland for many years.
I note what my hon. Friend has said about the possible effect of increased competition on solicitors, but solicitors have shown themselves to be versatile and capable of adapting to changing conditions of competition. I believe that they will bring those qualities to bear on the arrangements that the White Paper has described.

Mr. Peter Archer: Is not the real problem in our legal services inadequate funding? Is it not the case, on any computation, that whereas in 1979, over 70 per cent. of households were eligible for legal aid, that figure has fallen to less than 60 per cent.? Will the House have an opportunity to debate how what the Green Paper calls keen competition operating from the discipline of the market makes any contribution to the need for wider choice, consumer protection or adequate resources?

The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that, in 1979, the bill for legal aid was £100 million annually; it is now £500 million annually. We have to give the Legal Aid Act time to work before fair castigation of arrangements can possibly be made. That is an important matter with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree.

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the solicitors' profession as a whole will be pleased to learn that the representations made on its behalf by the Law Society have been so carefully and considerately dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues? Will he provide us with further assurance that the proposed regulations on conveyancing will be carefully and vigorously monitored at all times?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. The consultation has been unusually fruitful. More than 2,000 responses were received and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has given careful thought to each and every one. I am glad, but not surprised, that my hon. Friend believes that solicitors will be greatly reassured by the way in which their genuine and sensible anxieties have been heeded. That reassurance is justified. The whole purpose of the Bill is to try to achieve a balance between the need for competition and the need for the maintenance of standards. It is for the professional bodies, under the structure laid down by the White Paper, to make regulations, but they will also have


to have the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor and of the heads of division. They must also receive the attention of the independent advisory committee.

Mr. Keith Vaz: What has the Attorney-General on offer for those who are involved, or wish to be involved, in the provision of public legal services? In particular, I see no reference in the White Paper to the development and extension of law centres, and no solution to the recruitment crisis that is gripping the Crown prosecution service.

The Attorney-General: I pay tribute to the great amount of important work that is done for the public good in the provision of legal services. When the hon. Gentleman has had time to read the White Paper more closely, he will see that the "Civil Justice Review", which the Government have accepted, contains proposals for wider representation by lay people in the county court and small claims court. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that. It is something that is in part established, and it will be built upon. That is not neglected in the White Paper, and it is important that it should not be.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Lord Chancellor is to be congratulated upon having listened to constructive criticism of his original proposals, on having stuck to his guns on the main lines of his proposals, and on resisting the pressure, which was originally of an intemperate nature, which came from the Bar and the Bench?
Is not the Lord Chancellor to be congratulated also on his thoroughly welcome proposal that there should in future be the abolition of the lay observer, who is nothing but a snare and a delusion, being usually just an apologist for the Law Society, and the substitution of a legal services ombudsman, who will have a new statutory power to investigate the original complaint? This will be a great improvement and a tremendous help to lay people, who do not understand why their complaints have not been properly considered.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. The Government's purpose in bringing forward the Green Papers was to secure greater competition and lower costs, and at the same time the maintenance of high standards. There has been no departure from any of these purposes or objectives. Considerable anxiety was expressed in some quarters that certain aspects of the proposals in the Green Papers might work in the opposite direction, and the Government felt it right to heed some of the objections. I am glad that my hon. Friend believes that there has been an improvement without any departure from the important objectives to which I have referred.
I welcome what my hon. Friend said about the ombudsman. The ombudsman system is well tried, and I think that there is a good place for it in the provision of legal services, and especially in monitoring the operation of the professional bodies in the way in which, for example, they deal with complaints from the public.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Beggs.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Call another lawyer!

Mr. Roy Beggs: I am just a back-room lawyer.
The legal profession in Northern Ireland has had to cope with problems in circumstances very different from those experienced by the profession in England, Scotland and Wales. I feel that it has contributed much to normalising the difficult situation in Northern Ireland. Indeed, we are dependent on confidence being maintained in the administration of justice. To that end, may the House be told whether a legal aid board will be established in Northern Ireland and that those facing serious charges will continue to have the services of the most competent advocates?

The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has published a supplement to the Green Papers that is applicable to Northern Ireland. I think that the hon. Gentleman's question about a legal aid board is one that he will need to be written to about rather than receive an answer today.

Sir Peter Hordern: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend and the Lord Chancellor for bringing peace where there was conflict. Will the proposals make the administration of justice cheaper for the consumer than would otherwise have been the case? Will the course of justice be made any quicker as a result of his proposals, considering the interminable delays in litigation now?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. To the extent that the proposals promote competition, which they do in a real way, they will operate on cost in the way in which my hon. Friend desires and which the customer for legal services desires.
The "Civil Justice Review" published last year by the Lord Chancellor, whose provisions will form part of early legislation, is in part aimed at making litigation simpler and quicker. That is very much to be desired. Substantial proposals will be brought forward; they have already been outlined in the "Civil Justice Review". The entire Government share my hon. Friend's view.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate the Attorney-General on his triumph in throwing back the Picts and Scots and free market hordes from north of Hadrian's wall. Is it not a humiliating climb-down for the Government? Does it not sanctify the system of government by barristers, for barristers, of barristers? Is it not true that he has done nothing about the restrictive practices of the Bar—for example, barristers' clerks, QCs, double fees and so on? He has not—[Interruption.] He has not allowed the Crown prosecution service to compete—[Interruption.] It is competition under the control—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mitchell: Should not the Attorney-General have made what is essentially a service industry get out and serve the consumer instead of its own vested interests?

The Attorney-General: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman enjoys making that sort of speech, and we all enjoy listening to it, even though we hear it year in and year out. It is not fair to describe listening to consultation as a climb-down; indeed, it is rather hard to do so. If the Government fail to come forward with changes to their original proposals following a consultation period, they are accused of being arrogant and of the consultation being a sham. If, however, they come forward with


changes based upon that consultation, they are accused of a climb-down. I suppose that it was ever thus, but it is a little hard—not that that will disturb the hon. Gentleman.
I do not think that it can be described as a departure from the Government's original principle. The whole problem of, for example, rights of audience has been going on for 20 or 30 years. People ask why it was not left to rest after the royal commission. The answer is that the problem did not go away, and nor did the debate. That was recognised by the Bar and the Law Society when they set up the Marre committee.
I believe that what is now set out in the White Paper represents the skilful balance achieved by the Lord Chancellor, and it provides a real opportunity for evolutional change. It will break the logjam without risking breaking up the whole system.

Mr. Ian Gow: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the past six months have been well spent and that the proposals in the White Paper are greatly preferable to those in the Green Paper? Is he further aware that there has been a genuine exercise in consultation? Is it not only right that, when sensible proposals are made following a Green Paper, there should then be changes?
May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend two questions about restrictive practices? In future, will those members of the Bar who wish to accept instructions direct from a lay person be able to do so? Secondly, does my right hon. and learned Friend propose to remove the present restriction that non-contentious probate work can be done only by certain people?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks, particularly because he is a distinguished solicitor. There has been a great deal of work during the past six months and that has led to improvements. I am grateful that my hon. Friend recognises that.
On the question of the Bar taking direct instructions from a lay client, the White Paper makes it quite clear that the Bar Council should come forward with proposals in the form of rules of conduct.
Those rules, whatever they may be, will need to take account of the views of the advisory committee, and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and the senior judiciary will have to give their approval. It is not possible to say what will be the outcome of any proposals because the Government no longer propose to hold that matter under their own control.
There are proposals on probate in chapter 6 of the White Paper. Rather than take up the time of my hon. Friend and of the House in dealing with a matter of some technicality, I commend the fairly short proposals to be found in that chapter.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): In view of the new restrictions on corporate conveyancing, what further assurances can the Attorney-General give rural solicitors in respect of three specific issues? First, how will the regulations on conveyancing costs be policed, and who will be responsible for ensuring fair competition? Secondly, what will be the position in respect of the unequal balance of advertising whereby building societies and banks will be able to promote their services far in excess of the level that

solicitors in rural areas can afford? Thirdly, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman know that the first port of call for anyone involved in the conveyancing process is banks and building societies? How will people be encouraged to approach solicitors to establish whether their charges are competitive?

The Attorney-General: I shall try to answer briefly the hon. Gentleman's complex questions. Rural solicitors will be advantaged by the White Paper's proposed changes. Lending institutions will be required to set out their costs and to report the charges that they have been making. It will be open to those with an interest in such matters to determine whether those charges genuinely reflect the cost of the services provided.
There may be a disparity in the level of advertising as between the big lending institutions and rural solicitors, but small firms of solicitors have advantages that the big firms have not, including a local clientele and close contact with the communities in which they live and which they serve.
I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's final question when I remember what it was.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: As a non-lawyer and an ordinary consumer who, from time to time, uses the services of the legal profession, I should like to know how many of the protestations against the Lord Chancellor's excellent proposals were made by ordinary citizens wanting access to justice but who are unable to obtain it because of the cost and complexity of the legal system. I doubt very much whether many such people thought to write in with their point of view.
The issue of contingency fees seems to evoke an hysterical response based on experience of the American system, which cannot be extrapolated automatically to suit our personal circumstances. Contingency fees provide a method by which ordinary people can gain access to the law without resort to legal aid. Therefore, they are an extremely important part of the original proposals. The situation in Britain is different from America, because in this country the amount of damages awarded is strictly controlled by the justices, and the cost of conducting the case in the courts can also be controlled to some extent.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is right to say that in this country judges and not juries determine the level of damages. That is a significant difference between the American system and our own. Nevertheless, strong objection to contingency fees was expressed in the consultations. I believe that the Government are right in seeing more disadvantages than advantages in that method of funding litigation.
My hon. Friend spoke about members of the public writing in, and asked how their interests were considered, particularly in respect of the speed and cheapness of legal advice. As I said, the "Civil Justice Review" contains many significant proposals for quicker, cheaper and more efficient provision of legal services.
As to consultation, chapter 1 of the White Paper reveals that 29 per cent. of the 2,000 responses came from members of the public, groups representing consumer interests, educators, and others.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Why do the Government not admit their


surrender to a bunch of self-seeking judicial hooligans led by Lord Chief Justice Lane, who is in danger of choking on his own hyperbolic verbosity?

The Attorney-General: On the assumption that such a question is in order, it is not one that I propose to answer.

Mr. Barry Porter: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the conclusion can be drawn that the Government have been deafened and blinded by the cannon of the Bar and Bench but have taken little notice of the grapeshot that has come from the ordinary jobbing solicitor? The argument that he has advanced about ensuring that banks and building societies compete fairly is, in my judgment, so much froth.
We should like to know precisely how that fair competition is to he policed. For instance, will a bank or building society be allowed to add the cost of its fee to a loan, and would that be prevented if the individual saw an independent solicitor? Those questions may seem petty at this point, but they go to the root of the matter. If the independent solicitor is to be destroyed, whether in Ynys Môn or the Wirral, anyone who thinks that there will be cheaper or more efficient conveyancing should consider the probate fees charged by banks.

The Attorney-General: What my hon. Friend has said about insufficient notice being taken of criticisms made by solicitors is at variance with what has been said this afternoon by some of my other hon. Friends who are solicitors.
Careful attention has been paid to what solicitors have said, and there is genuine anxiety about unfair competition. If, however, my hon. Friend has time to look at paragraph 5.13 of the White Paper he will see that, in addition to the provisions of the code of practice which appear in the Green Papers and are set out in annex D of the White Paper, there is a requirement for a personal interview with the solicitor responsible for the conveyancing to be offered to the customer. He must be told that independent advice will not be available from the solicitor acting for the lending institution, and that is then drawn to the attention of the client, who will be able to decide whether he wishes to go elsewhere for independent advice. Conflicts of interest must be drawn to the client's attention, and there is also a requirement for the true cost of the conveyancing service to be set out.
Questions of policing are important, and will be a matter for mature and detailed consideration. I believe, however, that the White Paper has gone as far as it reasonably can to meet the anxieties that have been expressed.

Mr. David Winnick: Can the Attorney-General explain to someone who is not a lawyer the dividing line between listening carefully to barristers and brewers and giving in completely, and listening to dockers, trade unionists and the former GLC and deciding to ignore all opposition?

The Attorney-General: The distinction is one that the hon. Gentleman would find it very hard to understand. It is based on paying attention to individual circumstances, and establishing whether objectives that everyone agrees are correct are likely to be achieved by the initial proposals or could be better met as a result of listening to what is said in the course of a consultation. That is what the Government have done.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Notwithstanding the invective employed in the last two or three questions, the package announced by my right hon. and learned Friend wil be widely seen as a reasoned, balanced judgment on a number of important and difficult issues.
May I ask a question about the multidisciplinary practices for solicitors? Once the statutory restrictions have been removed, what will happen if the Law Society and the governing bodies of other professions are either unable or unwilling to reach agreement on the terms on which such practices can be set up? What time scale will be involved before the Director General of Fair Trading can intervene? Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that the evolutionary process that he has described will require the redrawing of professional demarcation lines to reflect the realities of the market place more accurately?

The Attorney-General: I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the proposals, because he speaks as a solicitor. One of the difficulties involved in putting control of such matters into the hands of the professional bodies—with the requirements for the concurrence of the senior judiciary and the taking of advice from an independent advisory committee—is the impossibility of foreseeing the outcome, let alone when the end will be reached.
I am not able to answer to my hon. Friend's question about the time scale; we shall just have to see how matters develop. I believe, however, that we should welcome the proposal for the professional bodies to be invited to present suggested rules that will take account of the lifting of the present statutory bar—in this instance, on the forming of multidisciplinary partnerships by solicitors. Whether the professional bodies take that opportunity, and when they do so, is not a question with which can deal today.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I welcome the Attorney-General's commitment to the independence of advocates in the higher courts. Will he join me in hoping and, indeed, expecting that the Law Society and the Bar—as part of their professional rules for independent advocates will insist on the continuation of the cab rank rule, and that advocates in the highest courts should not take part in the preparation or investigation of evidence for courts save in an independent and advisory capacity?

The Attorney-General: What the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about the cab rank rule is very important, and the Bar has always attached great professional significance to it. What the solicitors and other professional bodies may do in that regard remains to be seen.
As for advocates' involvement in the preparation of cases in the criminal court, the principle laid down in the royal commission chaired by Sir Cyril Philips, which lies at the heart of the Crown prosecution service, provides that there should be a separation. That is a valuable principle.

Mr. Edward Leigh: My right hon. and learned Friend may remember the views that I expressed in an Adjournment debate. Although I am a barrister, I found it difficult to defend an absolute bar on solicitors being heard in the higher courts. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this seems to be a sensible compromise based on evolution and self-regulation? Will he confirm that the onus is now placed on those


who want to argue against solicitors being heard, and that the heads of division will have to bear that in mind if they do not want to be taken to task by a judicial review?

The Attorney-General: I am glad that, given his previous interest in the matter, my hon. Friend sees the value of the evolutionary structure provided in the White Paper. There is an opportunity for change, and the statute will express the intention that change should come. We shall have to wait and see how the structure, with its careful and sensitive balance, will operate in individual cases. An important feature, however, is that individual consideration can now be given by all concerned to separate types of cases, which I believe will make for a much more reliable result.

Mr. Tony Banks: Once again the Government have retreated in the face of opposition from powerful vested interests. Last week it was drinks all round for the brewers; today the barristers will be throwing their wigs in the air with joy at the Attorney-General's announcement.
May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman how much his rumoured threat of resignation if the Green Paper proposals were implemented in full influenced the Government's White Paper proposals?

The Attorney-General: Lord Denning once said that he had every Christian virtue except that of resignation. I certainly do not want to investigate such matters, save to say that the hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in any newspaper.
There is no question of a retreat. I prefer to regard it as an advance: we have advanced much more reliably towards the attainment of the objectives that we have set out. Let me add that the present Government have contributed more to the establishment of competition and the break-up of old, traditional arrangements that did not operate to the advantage of the consumer than any Government that the hon. Gentleman has ever supported, or will ever have the chance to support.

Mr. Tim Devlin: I, too, congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the clever compromise that he has announced today. Further, however, to the answer that he has just given, may I ask him to exemplify the improvements that there will be for people who want to go to the Bar but who want to train first as solicitors? As a result of the White Paper proposals, will access for people coming from other European countries and for people coming from other branches of the profession be easier in the higher courts?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome of the proposals. I believe that there is material in the White Paper that should reassure those who wish to join the Bar straight away and young barristers. The Law Society recognises that as soon as someone has qualified as a barrister, from the time that he or she finishes pupillage, rights of access will be available to all the courts. In the case of solicitors, the Law Society recognises that it would be more appropriate to proceed by stages by reason of the fact that solicitors will not necessarily be specialist advocates. The Bar has also made substantial changes to its arrangements. It has provided for the payment of pupils and also for a very much more

advantageous environment for young entrants to the Bar. I believe that that in itself, very creditable as it is to the Bar authorities, is a consequence of the White Paper. Much advantage has been achieved, and I am glad that my hon. Friend thinks likewise.

Mr. Bob Cryer: During the Attorney-General's statement and climb-down from the Lord Chancellor's original proposals, he used the phrase that the new proposals were designed to preserve the viability of the Bar. Does that mean to preserve the huge fees that members of the Bar are used to receiving? Would not a reduction of the astronomical sums that they demand for often indifferent and incompetent work in the courts give greater access to ordinary people who cannot afford the sort of fees that the Bar demands? Is it not an outrageous example of the Government's unjust attitude that they can make a statement about people whose fees, if they were reduced to £100 an hour, would represent a marked reduction in the sums that they earn when they are busy attacking trade unionists, such as NUR members, who are lucky if they earn £100 a week? What is the Minister going to do about reducing the astronomical and parasitic sums that lawyers earn?

The Attorney-General: I have heard all this before. As it happens, I did not use the phrase that these proposals are designed to secure the viability of the Bar. I said that the Government attach great importance to the continued existence of a vigorous and independent Bar. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the effects of competition, as opposed to what is experienced by the consumer when there is a monopoly or a nationalised industry. If one wishes to go to the most fashionable silk, one can expect to pay a very large sum of money. If one wishes to go to the able but as yet very young practitioner, one will pay very much less money.
The point about an independent Bar is that 6,000 barristers are available to be chosen by anybody who wishes to secure their services. That is why it is so important that an independent Bar should be preserved. Therefore, for all the malice that the hon. Gentleman brings to bear upon those who provide legal services, I do not believe that there is any material here that can attract sensible criticism along the lines that the hon. Gentleman has just advanced.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that these sensible proposals will be welcomed not least because of the improved access to justice and to lawyers' advice that will be available to members of the public and also because they will provide the means for the customer to complain about inadequate services? Does my right hon. and learned Friend also accept that the principle of self-regulation that is enshrined in the White Paper and the independence of the legal profession are both very much in the interests of the consumer?

The Attorney-General: I readily acknowledge that. The White Paper uses words to the effect that the Government believe that self-regulation in the professions is the most effective form of regulation in the interests of the consumer. I believe that to be true. I am extremely glad that my hon. Friend regards them as sensible reforms. He also speaks as a solicitor. Since it suits certain Opposition Members to say that there has been a climb-down at the


expense of solicitors in favour of the Bar, it is very welcome that he, speaking as a solicitor, along with many others this afternoon, welcomes the proposals.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that his very presence at the Dispatch Box today suggests that the so-called radical reforming Government have now come to an end? It is one thing to take on the trade union institutions, the education authorities, local government and other aspects of British life, but when it comes to the lawyers versus the people the Minister runs away and gives in to the lawyers. During this parliamentary week one Minister has given in to the brewers who provide the money for the Tory party while another Minister, the Attorney-General, has given in to the lawyers, the very people who launder the money from the brewers and get it to the Tory party.

The Attorney-General: That was something worth waiting for all these noisy minutes. When the hon. Gentleman says——

Mr. Skinner: People out there will notice.

The Attorney-General: It is all very interesting——

Mr. Skinner: Has he burnt his fingers?

The Attorney-General: I should be very interested to be present in any court over which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) presided in a judicial capacity. Considerable fees would have to be demanded before anybody was prepared to appear before him, and very well earned they would be. [Interruption.] I wonder whether I might be allowed to intervene, however briefly? When the hon. Gentleman speaks of lawyers versus the people, he might reflect on the fact that without any law and the professionals to serve it there would be no freedom for the people.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: The Bar will welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement. Could he assure hon. Members and law students who are studying in our universities and polytechnics that the system that he is devising, under which members of the public will be able to go direct to solicitors who will be able to take the case right through to the High Court, will provide sufficient advantages and encouragement to young people to go to the Bar so that the Bar does not wither?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend puts his finger on an anxiety that has been expressed in quite a number of responses to the Green Paper proposals. Since the Law Society recognises that it is appropriate that those who have been called to the Bar should have rights of access immediately to all courts once they have finished their pupillage, any students in the law schools who want to become specialist advocates are likely to opt for the Bar. There might have been some reason for anxiety if that were not the case and if everybody had to proceed by stages. However, since that has been recognised by the Law Society, it has enabled the Lord Chancellor to come forward with a very much simpler scheme for qualification for rights of audience. Therefore, anybody who really wants to be a specialist advocate and who is now a law student should feel that it is entirely appropriate to join the Bar and take his or her chance in that most competitive of professions.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Speaker: I am informed that adequate copies of the illustrative community charges are now available in the Vote Office. I think that we should proceed with the statement.

Dr. Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Secretary of State resumes answering questions, I hope that he can clarify what appears to be a difference between his statement and the document that has now been issued to Members from the Vote Office.
In his statement, the Secretary of State said:
the maximum amount of gain deferred will be £75 per adult.
As hon. Members can see, the following statement is made at the top of the tables:
Safety net allows losses of up to £23 per adult and 47 per cent. of gains subject to maximum of £70 per adult".
The statement does not accord with the information on the tables. They show examples of over £70 per adult. Which is right?

Mr. James Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order because I was given notice of it.

Mr. Lamond: Earlier today, while the Secretary of State was making his statement at the Dispatch Box, I thought that I saw the civil servants in the Box to your right, Sir, hand out a number of copies of the paper to Conservative Back Benchers. I say that I thought I saw that happen—I was not sure. I would not raise the matter with you, Mr. Speaker, if I had been assured by the civil servants that that was not the case.
Naturally, I went to ask the civil servants. When I did so, the Secretary of State and the Minister intervened to say that on no account were those civil servants to answer my question and that the only answer that I could have was from them. I am sorry to say that I am not prepared to accept any reply from the Secretary of State or the Minister. I prefer to have the truth, if possible, from the civil servants.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will accept this response from me. Since he raised the matter with me privately, I have looked into it and I can assure him that that did not happen.

Mr. Ridley: With regard to the point of order that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) raised, if he looks at the tables he will see that they are for 1989–90, whereas the arrangements that I announced for the safety net are for 1990–91, a year later. The figure of £75 which is the maximum contribution in 1990–91 should be reduced, because of the effects of inflation this year and next year, to a comparable figure. The hon Gentleman will therefore understand why we have used the figure of £70 as the cut-off point in exemplifying the system for the current year as opposed to next year.
The hon. Gentleman asked for details of the national non-domestic rate. The Inland Revenue has not yet completed its revaluation and given the details that we


need before we can give the hon. Gentleman those figures. They will be made available as soon as possible, and certainly in the autumn.
The hon. Gentleman asked also about the standard spending assessment. He is right—that is the variable in this package which we have not yet given the House and which is essential before any authority can calculate what its community charge may be next year. The authorities do not know what assessment we will choose. There is good reason for that, as the hon. Gentleman should know. We have been discussing the standard spending assessment with local authority associations since Christmas. We have been exemplifying all sorts of suggestions that the associations have put forward and asked us to exemplify, some of which the hon. Gentleman quoted. No choice has yet been made, because we should like, if possible, to carry the associations with us on what is the correct assessment from their point of view as well as ours. We cannot be firm until those decisions are taken.
The hon. Gentleman described this settlement as a "cut", which surprises me. It is an 11 per cent. increase in the provision that we made for the current year. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right to base his opinions on the budgets for this year, because the current year was a strange year in the history of rate support grant. It was the last year of the system and a number of authorities increased their spending, partly to unwind creative accounting, partly because they were not subject to grant penalties for so increasing their spending and partly for other reasons. It is, therefore, the worst year that the hon. Gentleman could possibly use to base his calculations on the budgets.
The hon. Gentleman asked in what way local authorities could achieve this settlement as the Government suggest. There can be enormous efficiency savings, some of which I mentioned in my statement. The tendering-out process, which has started, is beginning to show ever-greater opportunities for savings, and I think that that is the right answer.
The hon. Gentleman moved on to his constituency and said:
the … likely poll tax in Copeland in the next financial year will be about £350 per person.
I have very good news for the hon. Gentleman. The safety-netted charge in Copeland is £196 this year, not £350. The hon. Gentleman is therefore totally wrong—almost by a factor of two—in making that claim. His council has an opportunity to get the amount even lower if it will look at its spending. The hon. Gentleman is a great beneficiary of the safety net that we have produced.
The hon. Gentleman may like to cheer up his constituents by telling them that there will be a 17·1 per cent. reduction in the business rate. He may not want it, but his constituents do.

Several Hon. Members: rose ——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the great importance of the statement, but the House knows that it will involve legislation. I therefore hope that hon. Members will put pointed and brief questions and not go into great detail at this stage.

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): Does my right hon. Friend accept that if non-domestic ratepayers receive

transitional relief while we transfer from an unfair rating system to a much fairer one in the longer term, it is obvious that householders in prudently run authorities should also do so, and to that extent the House will welcome his statement? Will my right hon. Friend reflect that not many prudently run local authorities have an average rateable value as low as £150? When discussing the matter with the local authority associations later in this summer, will he consider extending that?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have provided transitional relief for non-domestic ratepayers and for community charge payers. The systems will be different in each case because their circumstances are different. The careful, gentle transitions that we are providing will greatly ease the introduction of the new system. My hon. Friend was right in his comments on well-run councils. One council in his constituency, Cannock Chase, will make a small contribution to the safety net and will have a reasonably low community charge.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that he originally brought forward his original safety net proposals to protect those that might otherwise suffer financially under the financial changes associated with the poll tax. It appears that he has decided that, to buy votes for Conservative Members, it is worth sacrificing some of those needs that he previously identified. The problem is that he has not even satisfied Conservative Members, because he is not prepared to spend Government money to do so but simply tries to transfer money between the poor old ratepayers and poll tax payers in their areas. The right hon. Gentleman's successor will come under great pressure to make changes. The proposal does nothing to meet the needs of those areas where bills will increase or of other areas, including those Conservative Members who have been worrying about them, that are asked to finance his policies.
Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that although those areas may be able to wait until the new Secretary of State takes office in the autumn, the people who will suffer most from the announcement are business ratepayers who, as he has made clear in his answer to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), will not be given an idea of how they will suffer until the autumn? They are already trying to draw up budgets for their businesses. Will the Secretary of State respond to that before the recess?

Mr. Ridley: Most of that was in the nature of statement rather than question. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in suggesting that we are reshuffling the money to provide interim protection. All we are doing is providing a sufficient grant for the safety net. It is better that that should be shown to the customer—each community charge payer—on his own bill so that he is aware whether he is contributing directly to or getting benefit from the safety net, rather than having it lost in the whole grant structure, which is the alternative.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Call Rhodes Boyson.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) try to contain himself now? I think that we have all had enough of it.

Sir William Shelton: My constituents will warmly welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend of a transitional grant for inner London to cushion the costs of the change from the Inner London education authority to local councils as education authorities. Will my right hon. Friend tell us how long the transitional grant will last? Will it be tapered? Will the educational content of the Government grant to inner London be more or less the same level as the £950 million that ILEA is spending currently each year in inner London?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall answer his later questions first. The new grant for the authorities that receive educational responsibilities in London will he tapered over a five-year period. That is extra to any grant that comes through the standard spending assessment, the details of which, as I said earlier, have not yet been finally decided. However, I doubt whether it will come to the full amount of the current overspend of ILEA of £183 per adult. He will he glad to know that for his constituency this year, the community charge, if we had had it in place, would have been £297 in Lambeth. He might equally like to know that if we had a system of combined local income tax and capital value rates in place, the burden on the average man in his constituency would be £1,218.

Mr. Rees: Will the Secretary of State turn his mind to the page of the statement headed "1989/90 Illustrative capital value rates and local income tax" and the six pages that follow? Surely the Department of the Environment cannot possibly know what the position will be after the next general election, about the rate of local income tax declared or about the nature of capital values. Were those figures drawn up by the Civil Service? Do those figures come out of the statistical department of the Department of the Environment? If anyone had suggested that such political matter should be provided under any Government under whom I served, the permanent under-secretary would have said very firmly that it was not a matter for the Civil Service.

Mr. Ridley: rose——

Mr. Rees: I have not finished. Surely those seven pages should come from Conservative Central Office at the time of the next general election, when it sees what is in our manifesto. The Secretary of State is being too clever by half in cloaking a bad tax and that should not be done in a document such as this.

Mr. Ridley: I am extremely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not like having his own party's policy put to him. It seems extraordinary that he should have blundered into drawing attention to the fact that this is the adopted policy of his own party. [Interrruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State must have a chance to answer the question put to him.

Mr. Ridley: rose——

Mr. Jeff Rooker: It is a lie.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is a lie.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State must not be accused of lying. He must answer the question that was put to him.

Mr. Ridley: I have received parliamentary questions asking me to exemplify certain systems of local authority finance. That is the question I have answered and, as far as I know, this is the system that the Labour party has adopted as its policy. If Labour Members want to alter any of the assumptions on which it is based, the hon. Member for Copeland has only to let me know and I shall alter the assumptions. However, on the assumptions clearly stated here and in answer to a parliamentary question, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) will find that his constituents would have had to pay £252 in the first year of the community charge, if it had been this year, and £460 under the scheme of local authority finance that he supports.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend knows that at present the county councils pay to the district councils a certain percentage of the collection of the rates and a certain percentage of any losses incurred from non-collection. As I understand it, there is no allowance under the new proposals for the county council to pay anything to the district councils. Lancashire has 17 district councils, which means that Lancashire county council will make a substantial profit on the collection to spend on the harebrained schemes thought up by the Labour-controlled council.

Mr. Ridley: The question of shortfall in the yield of the charge which arises either through evasion of paying or through the costs of collection is still under discussion with the local authority associations.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Although I welcome the fact that Burnley will receive one of the biggest reductions, of £107 per head, as a result of having low-rated property, will the Secretary of State accept that we made that point when the Bill was going through Parliament? Will he also realise that the people of north-east Lancashire will recognise that these measures are being taken more with a view to saving the Tory marginal seats in that area? People with this concession will still be paying more than they are under the present rates system. This is only a transitional arrangement. The poll tax is grossly unfair because of its failure to take into account ability to pay.

Mr. Ridley: I take it that the hon. Gentleman now regards his seat as a Tory marginal, which may be underestimating the extent of our majority there after the next election. I was also glad that he recognised the help I have offered to seats such as his, which have a low average rateable value per household. The people of Burnley will like to know that the first year community charge, if it had been applied this year, would have been £173, but if they had had local income tax and capital value rates, they would have had to pay £499. What does he think is fair about that?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Can my right hon. Friend explain why, if the purpose of the community charge is to make councils more accountable to electors, community charge payers in my constituency will have to pay an extra £49 a year to bail out extravagant Socialist councils such as Manchester, which have overspent like mad? What encouragement is there in the arrangements for councils that have followed prudent policies over the years?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend's constituents are already paying quite a lot to other areas under the resource equalisation mechanism in the rating system. Under the present arrangements they are paying £62 a head, whereas for the new community charge, we have been able to reduce the figure to £44. I think that my hon. Friend will find that that is a considerable improvement.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, even with the safety net, in Liverpool each individual will have to pay £338, whereas in areas such as Tewkesbury, where there is a slight increase, individuals will have to pay £239? That will place a greater burden on the mass of ordinary working people in an area with high unemployment and serious problems and under great stress. Is it not clear that the Government are putting the burden on to the shoulders of those who can ill afford to pay, whereas those who can afford to pay—the right hon. Gentleman's friends in his constituency—will get away with paying much less?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to Tewkesbury council, which is, indeed, a very well-run authority, which is more than one can say for Liverpool. That is why Liverpool faces such a high community charge. The hon. Gentleman should address his question to Liverpool city council and not to me. He ought to ask the hon. Member for Copeland how he justifies a system of local authority finance which, in his own constituency, would make the average man pay £640 in local income tax and capital value rates.

Mr. Steve Norris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that under the present ludicrous and iniquitous system of block grant redistribution, the poor in rich areas have been subsidising the rich in poor areas for many years? Does he further agree that the great advantage of the present system of identifying the safety net is that the Government have identified it in order to eliminate it?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The present arrangements result in many very poor people having to pay over the odds to subsidise those in other areas who could well afford to pay the full amount. We are removing the inequity from the system—in one step next year, to be followed by other steps.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: May I ask the Secretary of State about Birmingham? Why should Birmingham poll tax payers pay a surcharge on the Tory tax of £67? It is one of only five local authorities on the whole list with a net overspend of zero. Why should my constituents pay £67 to subsidise overspending Tory local authorities such as Blackpool and Lancaster?

Mr. Ridley: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the support of the new system. He may not know it, but for many years his constituents have been paying more than what the city of Birmingham requires to subsidise those authorities. That has happened under the system of resource equalisation. We have started his constituency on the road towards reducing that excess and winding it out altogether, but the large increase in rate support grant that Birmingham received this year has altered the figures for this year, as compared with last year.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend forgive me for saying that

we seem to swap one unfair system—which it certainly is—for another unfair system and that the people of Birmingham will not understand his assertion that we got too much last year and that is why the figure is getting worse this year or why the financial prudence of Birmingham city council is now being thrown in its face? However my right hon. Friend cares to explain it, the £67 is £67 that we should not have to spend. My right hon. Friend has uttered fine words about new Elysian fields of fairness in local government. Why is it that this year the system in operation is possibly the most unfair system that we have ever had and that all the great overspenders in London are laughing at the fact that Tory common sense has become a Tory folly?

Mr. Ridley: I understand my hon. Friend's impatience to reach the end of the transitional period and to have the full community charge in place in Birmingham. I can understand why he wants us to cease having to impose on the citizens of Birmingham the burden of having to contribute through the resource equalisation mechanism to other citizens elsewhere. We all share that objective, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). The question is how soon and how quickly we should phase the arrangements out. I believe that it is generally accepted in the House that it is right to have a four-year transitional period over which to phase them out rather than putting an immediate end to all relief.

Mr. John Fraser: Given that the average rate burden per head of the population in Lambeth is £250, will the Secretary of State confirm that the non-safety netted poll tax will be substantially more than twice the present burden? Can he say whether the figures that he has published today are widely welcome among Conservative business men in Croydon, Bromley, Westminster, Wandsworth, Kensington and the City of London?

Mr. Ridley: With current spending rates, the full community charge in Lambeth this year would have been £543. The hon. Gentleman must take that up with Lambeth council because it is entirely due to that council and to ILEA that the figures are so extremely high. We have granted Lambeth relief under the safety net for four years, so the hon. Gentleman has four years in which to persuade its council to put its house in order.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to transfer community charge money from provident to improvident authorities under the safety net arrangements is to undermine the very basis of the community charge which, in the beginning, was that one paid only for what one voted for?

Mr. Ridley: My right hon. Friend has heard the argument about whether there should be a transitional period. Many hon. Members are grateful, and have said so today, for the transitional help that we have given to their constituents so that they will not have to move up to the full level immediately. That help must be paid for at the expense of those who have gains to come.

Mr. George Howarth: Ministers always refer to Knowsley as a well-run borough, although it has tremendous problems of deprivation none the less. Can the Secretary of State explain why Knowsley has turned out to be a net contributor to the safety net, given the extent of our problem as compared with those of


councils in constituencies represented by Conservative Members? Can the Secretary of State explain why in Merseyside—a fairly deprived area by any standards—three out of five local authorities, including those covering Bootle and Birkenhead, are net contributors to the safety net? Has the right hon. Gentleman any justification that would be in the least bit convincing?

Mr. Ridley: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman the disappointing news that those three boroughs are currently contributing to the permanent safety net that has existed in the form of resource equalisation. It is only by getting rid of that element in the present system that the full charge can be applied. We have agreed that there should he a transitional period before the full charge comes in. The fact that we have moved his constituents slightly in that direction is the result of my announcement today that all those losers will he asked to contribute £25 a head.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I know that my right hon. Friend has had many representations today and in previous weeks from many hon. Members who object to their constituents paying towards the safety net. My authority is a receiver of the safety net, but even though we receive some £89 from it, can he help me explain to two pensioners in my constituency, whose current rates payable are £267, why they will have to pay £624 under the new system? It will be difficult to explain to them that the new system is fairer and that they will be better off.

Mr. Ridley: What I have announced today will be of considerable help to my hon. Friend as she rightly pointed out. She would fare far worse under the Labour proposals. Were her constituents subject to capital value rates and local income tax they would be asked, on average, to find £554 this year. That is what someone on the average rate would have to pay.

Mr. James Lamond: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the figures that he caused his civil servants to work out for party-political purposes and which he has tried to represent as Labour party policy, are incorrect? Column 8, from which he has quoted several times, gives the tax bill resulting from local income tax rates when expenditure in the domestic sector is raised 100 per cent. from that source. The example he gives is not, as he suggested, based on the average man, but on a single adult on average male earnings and in receipt of the single persons's tax allowance. If there were another column that showed a married adult whose wife was not earning anything, her contribution would not be what he has said, but would be nothing.

Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a question I will, of course, give him the full exemplifications for any system, any combination of systems or any types of people that he wants. I am longing to have any correction from the Labour party to the data upon which the figures of its twin-tax nightmare are based because it is time that the Opposition realised what a considerable problem they have if they persist with such an absurd scheme.

Sir Philip Goodhart: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that his Department's new proposals for calculating local authorities needs and assessments will substantially penalise authorities such as Bromley, that

have a good record of economic administration? Does he recognise that his Department's proposals could push the community charge for Bromley far higher than the £209 calculated in my right hon. Friend's paper?

Mr. Ridley: There is no decision on this. We have based the figures on what we believe is about the best type of standard spending assessment that we can devise. If that is the one that is finally adopted, the figures given would be very nearly correct. It is something that we must get right with the local authority associations and I do not believe that my hon. Friend need be worried by the extremes quoted by the hon. Member for Copeland because they are responses, in the main, to suggestions from various classes of authorities as to how the grant might he divided. Clearly those suggestions are designed to be in the interests of that particular class of authority. There is nothing wrong with that, but I doubt whether that would be acceptable to the generality of the associations.

Mr. Chris Smith: How can the Secretary of State possibly justify a system that produces results of such massive discrepancy between different authorities? The London borough of Barnet, which contains the Tory marginal constituency of Finchley, currently has an average rate bill per household of £708. The indicative first year safety-netted community charge will be £290 per person. Yet the London borough of Islington, whose constituents I represent, currently has an average rate bill of £776, which is not dissimilar to the one for Barnet, but its first year safety-netted community charge is £496 per head. That is twice as much as the Prime Minister's constituents must pay.

Mr. Ridley: Of course the hon. Gentleman must realise why: it is because the London borough of Barnet conducts its affairs frugally and efficiently, which can hardly be said of the London borough of Islington. He might like to know that the situation would be very much worse if his solution to the problem were adopted in Islington.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I want to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the position in Derbyshire and to the full community charge as outlined in column 3. It shows that, overall, Derbyshire has one of the highest sets of community charge in the country. That is not because of anything that central Government have done, but is largely due to the high-spending county council. Column 4 gives us a few of the transitional periods of payment. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the place that does best in Derbyshire is no marginal Tory seat, but that held by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? That area will receive a plus of £88, which is far better than that for any Tory authority or Tory constituency in Derbyshire.

Mr. Ridley: I apologise to my hon. Friend if I got it wrong.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Will the Secretary of State please explain why his statement, which was presented as a safety net to cushion the full effects of the community charge, means that in Avon, where there are six district authorities—only one of which is Labour—the safety netted community charge is, without fail, higher than his own estimate for the community charge this year? Why is the Secretary of State increasing the community charge for the county of Avon?

Mr. Ridley: I do not follow what the hon. Lady is saying. Spending in Bristol is high and, as a result, it has a high community charge in the short and long term.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend explain to me why Macclesfield borough council, one of the most prudently and responsibly managed in the country, which has a record of underspend and not overspend, should have to pay out for those authorities, particularly in inner cities, that have been irresponsibly and badly run? How can I explain to my pensioners who live on the retirement pension with perhaps a little additional private income, and to those who are unfortunately on income support, that they must bail out people in areas that have been badly run?

Mr. Ridley: I am sure that my hon. Friend has already explained to his constituents that they have been paying heavily towards other areas that benefit. What we are doing is unwinding the unfair system whereby his constituents and those of many other hon. Members must pay to areas of low rateable value for no other reason than that. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that in the new system that I announced today I have managed to reduce what his constituents must pay from £75, if it were for this year, to £51. That is some relief.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Will the Secretary of State give some thought to the people who live in a unique domestic architecture known as the Tyneside flats, with which I am sure he is familiar, as his ancestors built several thousand of them? Those Tyneside flats have a low rateable value, but, as a result of the withdrawal of the safety net from Newcastle, its underpinning, and the fact that Newcastle will now contribute to the safety net rather than benefit from it, those people in the Tyneside flats in my constituency, most of them elderly, will suffer. Will the Secretary of State give some consideration to that particular form of low rateable value housing and advance some concession to bring benefit from the disbenefits that his statement creates?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman's constituents will not benefit from or contribute to the safety net under the arrangements that I have put forward. This is only a device to equalise authorities, not a device to equalise different types of property or people within an authority. That function is carried out by the rebate system and 9 million people will be given help in the form of community charge rebates.

Mr. Michael Shersby: The first year safety net and community charge for the London borough of Hillingdon is shown as £342 compared with the community charge of standard spending of £240. That is due to overspending of £97 per head by that borough. In his statement, my right hon. Friend referred to the opportunities for savings which exist for local authorities arising from their payroll. Has my right hon. Friend's Department accumulated figures over the past three years to show by how much London local authorities have increased their payrolls, so that ratepayers can be given some idea of the increase that has resulted in that overspending?

Mr. Ridley: I cannot here and now give my hon. Friend the information that he seeks, but I shall see whether there is anything that we can give him to help him explain an

overspend in his borough of £97 per head this year compared with an underspend in some similar boroughs in outer London. There must be some reason to do with the efficiency of a council for such a situation.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members know that we have a heavy day ahead of us. I am conscious of the fact that virtually every constituency is affected, although I think not in Scotland, but I shall do my best to call those hon. Members who are standing, provided that they ask brief questions.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State confirm that Allerdale is a beneficiary of the safety netting arrangements but that in subsequent years will have some of the highest poll tax increases, first because of inflation and, secondly, because of the need to close the safety net from which it is now a beneficiary? Before the right hon. Gentleman quotes me the local income tax figure, let me say that any person who goes to the Dispatch Box and says that Allerdale's people will have to pay £775 in income tax under a Labour Government will be telling a lie to the House of Commons.

Mr. Ridley: I must tell the hon. Gentleman the correct figure. A single man on average wages in Allerdale would pay £491 under the Labour party's system. The hon. Gentleman should tell his constituents that, because I will tell them if he does not.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is rubbish and a lie.

Mr. Ridley: If it is a lie, and it is wrong, will the hon. Gentleman please tell me on what he would like the exemplifications based? We only need the assumptions to be corrected and we shall give him the exemplifications.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We should not use the word "lie". If hon. Members feel that something is untrue, they may say that it is wrong, but we must not break the traditions of the House by accusing each other of lying.

Mr. Richard Page: I support the principle of the community charge, but does my right hon. Friend accept that with a full community charge in my constituency of £285, and a first year safety net of £360, my constituents in presently low-rated accommodation will find the impact of the community charge severe enough without the extra £75 that they will have to pay under the safety net? They will ask me why they have to pay that £75 to bail out profligate councils and I will have great difficulty in giving them an answer. Will my right hon. Friend examine low-rated property and bring forward measures when the House reassembles after the recess before the matter becomes enshrined in law?

Mr. Ridley: This year, the average rate bill per household in the Three Rivers council in my hon. Friend's constituency was £827—one of the highest there is. That impost is already being levied on my hon. Friend's constituents. We are seeking to phase that out and he will find that his constituents gain considerably in the first year under the system that I have just announced.

Mr. David Clelland: Let me take the Secretary of State back to a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr.


Rees). It is undoubtedly legitimate for Tory party Central Office to criticise Labour party policies, but under what moral, if not legal, authority does the Secretary of State issue the document "Illustrative capital value rates and local income tax"? Is that not a blatant example of political propaganda at public expense, a practice that he has deprecated in local authorities? Is that not the height of hypocrisy and as near as can be to political corruption?

Mr. Ridley: The answer is simple. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Order Paper he will find that I was asked to set that out, and if a Minister is asked a question, he should, if it is possible, give the answer, which in this case I did very fully. The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman does not like it. That is all that is wrong.

Mr. W. Benyon: I did not vote for the community charge, but I understood that its principal object was to make local authorities truly accountable. In the circumstances, would not it have been more sensible and fair to make the Exchequer pay for the transitional arrangements?

Mr. Ridley: As I have explained, in a sense that is what is happening. We have two alternatives. We can either not show the contribution to the safety net on the rate bill, or we can do so. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it is much easier to tell his constituents which part of the bill relates to the community charge and which part relates to the safety net, rather than the other way around.

Mr. Allen McKay: I accept that the system will give Barnsley some protection in the first year, but when we come to the full poll tax, 95 per cent. of my constituents' households will pay more. Will the Secretary of State take into consideration the needs element, which could, if the right hon. Gentleman is not careful, withdraw £24 million from that authority which it cannot afford?

Mr. Ridley: I understand that there is a particular problem in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and that he is coming to see my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government. We shall do our best to try to find a solution to the particular problem in his constituency.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his announcement today of an additional £200 million in grants for 1991 would, if applied to the figures that we have been given for 1989–90, have had the effect of reducing each person's community charge by £5 across the board? Is that not an excellent point to make to the country? Are we not hiding our light under a bushel by not giving such illustrative figures?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is quite right. I should explain a rather technical matter in answer to his question. The £200 million made available next year will go to the inner-London authorities and to the low rateable value authorities which I described. In order to make the exemplifications for this year comparable—we have, of course, no means of adding grant to the figures for this year—we have had to make the figures for the exemplifications for 1989–90 £5 per head higher than they would have been if we had been able to add the extra grant. These figures would have been rather lower if we had. It is rather tortuous logic, but I am afraid that that is the way it is.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Is it fair that in these notional overspending figures a town such as Scunthorpe, which has been dominated for many years by one large industry, should be crippled because of the loss to the local council of the business rate? Can the Secretary of State explain why, on his own figures, Boothferry council is deemed to be spending more than Glanford, yet in the first year of the change will pay £60 more per head than Boothferry? Is the answer that the Secretary of State's figures are as nonsensical as his arguments?

Mr. Ridley: I did not quite follow what the hon. Gentleman said, but I think that he was talking about the difference in the rateable values between two councils, which, of course, will show up as soon as we move to the safety net, because the safety net is based on the present contribution.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one item in his statement is particularly welcome? It is the recognition at last of the need for special relief for those areas in the north that historically have averaged lower rateable values. However, will he look again at the way that that system will work? Sunderland and Leeds currently have approximately the same average rateable values. Sunderland is overspending by twice as much as Leeds, but instead of paying £21 more, people in Sunderland will, as a result of the relief, pay £27 less. It would be a much better solution to the problem, given its scale, if at long last we recognised that education is primarily a national service which should be funded by national and not local taxpayers.

Mr. Ridley: I am glad that my hon. Friend acknowledges the help that the rateable value specific grant will bring to areas in the north. There does not seem to be quite the same gratitude from the Opposition, but at least my hon. Friend sees the point. This is not the time for me to speculate on whether education should or should not be paid for out of local authority finance. Such debates were held in Committee and, given the statement on the assessments, I do not think that we can do it.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State said that he was unwinding the rate system. What he is unwinding this afternoon is his political career. It is quite magical to hear words from a political corpse. I hope that the Secretary of State will not be shuffled off in October. I hope that he stays at the Dispatch Box and suffers right up to the general election defeat that the poll tax will bring about. How come that a borough such as Newham——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had his chance.

Mr. Banks: How come that a borough such as Newham, which has the 11th highest rate in London, will end up with the sixth highest poll tax in London? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that Newham is the second most deprived local authority area in the whole of England and Wales? We have social problems that the Secretary of State does not even know about, never mind experienced.

Mr. Ridley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one matter; I hope that there will not be a reshuffle of the Opposition Front Bench because the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who has not been here for


the last hour, is the greatest asset we have. He can tell his constituents from me that if they ever have the system of capital value rates and local income tax the average man on average earnings in Copeland will pay £1,116 to his high-spending Labour council.

Mr. Richard Holt: Would my right hon. Friend care to examine the situation in two neighbouring authorities, both of which I have the honour to represent in the House—Middlesbrough and Langbaurgh? Both authorities have approximately the same number of people, but there are two variants in terms of grant. Middlesbrough has a large ethnic minority and Langbaurgh has a large area of wasteland as a result of dereliction. Consequently, the ratepayers of Langbaurgh have the highest rate in the country to pay and endure. We have taken five separate delegations every year to see Ministers and each year we have been told, "Next year it will be different." Even when we came last week we were told that under the new system it would be different. But it is not different, and as a consequence I must tell my right hon. Friend that there will be outrage in Langbaurgh at the failure to recognise its special needs because it is not on the list, and will remain the highest rated in this northern area.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend's constituency is another with a special problem like that of the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay). My hon. Friend has seen my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and it is better for us to try to sort out the problem in the best way that we can. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that this year we have seen a 28·4 per cent. reduction in the business rate in Langbaurgh.

Mr. Harry Barnes: It has taken a long time for common sense to come to some hon. Members, as the question by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has shown. Is the Minister aware that fairness cannot be introduced to a system that is inherently unfair? In attempting to introduce some fairness to some areas, the transitional arrangements will lead to a comparative loss in high rateable areas while in low rateable areas there will be a comparative gain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) said, problems arise in that some people will lose in low rateable value areas within constituencies that have a high rateable value, while people in high rateable value property in low rateable areas will gain. My constituency is directly affected by that, because some of the benefits that might transitionally come to other constituencies will not come to mine, as it is a mixed district area with different rateable values.

Mr. Ridley: Every constituency has different problems and different distributions of people and rateable values. There is nothing unique about that. We are seeking to phase out resource equalisation in the transitional safety net while at the same time providing protection for individuals through the very extensive system of rebates which should take care of anybody in an especially bad position.

Several Hon. Members: rose ——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This statement refers to England. I therefore propose to call two for one because, of course, this is a United Kingdom Parliament and I shall then give Scottish Members an opportunity to put their point of view.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is only fair and equitable to help areas such as mine which have traditionally enjoyed low rateable values? Is it right that in Copeland, for example, the average rateable value per hereditament is £121 and therefore Copeland will benefit considerably from the statement? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that underlines that it is vital not to look at these matters in isolation, but to consider the alternatives? That is why my right hon. Friend was wise to warn people in Copeland on salaries of just £11,000 a year that they could end up paying £1,000 if the scheme of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is implemented.

Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that he will visit Copeland, as I hope to do, in order to make sure that the people there are made aware of that fact.

Sir Hugh Rossi: My constituents enjoy the unenviable distinction of having to pay the highest community charge in the country—£642 per adult. No doubt that is due to the fact that the local authority is overspending by nearly £400 per adult, and no doubt the electors will take account of that next May. Will my right hon. Friend tell me why a constituency in that situation should he making a contribution to the safety net? Will he introduce powers to rate-cap, and will he apply them vigorously to boroughs such as Haringey?

Mr. Ridley: Haringey is both a high-spending authority and a high rateable value authority, so its ratepayers currently contribute to other councils as well as having to pay a great deal to their own council.
I assure my hon. Friend that capping powers are in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and, if it is felt correct and necessary, we will not hesitate to use them.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Secretary of State referred to what he called Labour party policy in relation to these seven pages. Can he tell the House the total cost of producing them—a cost borne by the United Kingdom taxpayer? Is the Secretary of State aware that, by producing these pages, he, personally has called into question the impartiality of the Civil Service? The head of the Civil Service ought to look at the damage that the Secretary of State has done to that service. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if Labour councils produced that kind of political propaganda the Secretary of State would impose a surcharge? We will be glad to see the back of him and of his double standards.

Mr. Ridley: I cannot understand why Opposition Members keep returning to this subject. It would be far wiser to try to forget it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I do not want to forget it. I am delighted for the hon. Gentleman to raise it. Opposition Members seem to be so extremely sensitive about their proposals being mentioned. That surprises me very much.
I have received a parliamentary question. Am I not supposed to answer it? Should I answer parliamentary questions from the Opposition but not from this side?

Mr. Tony Baldry: Is the reason that we are having to spend so much time this afternoon discussing safety nets, the consistent and persistent overspending by a large number of local authorities, almost all of which are Labour-controlled, such as the London borough of Lambeth which, on average, spends £303 per adult more than it needs to each and every year? Despite that, the council still has hundreds of council units of accommodation empty and hundreds that are full of squatters and it is spending thousands of pounds on the wages of former Labour Members of Parliament who have been defeated in an election and now act as its special advisers. Is it not necessary to introduce the community charge to protect the community as a whole from this consistent and persistent overspending?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Whether the new director general of Lambeth will succeed in putting up the community charge still further remains to be seen, but I would not be surprised if he did.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Can my right hon. Friend confirm two things? First, are all the swings that we are so exercised about very modest compared with those that would have resulted from rate revaluation? Secondly, would not areas such as Canterbury, where there have been enormous movements in house prices for reasons that have had nothing to do with local prosperity and a great deal to do with second home owners and other outside factors, lose very heavily if we retained the existing system?

Mr. Ridley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The high house prices in some parts of the south-east, particularly his constituency, are the worst possible reason for the people who live there to be asked to pay more towards local government even when their council is a low-spending one. It is absolute nonsense at present. To bring it back in the form of an annual valuation—we must consider the expense of administering it—to clobber people who happen to live in areas where there are high house prices, is the most suicidal policy I have ever heard of.

Mr. Alex Salmond: What is the total additional funding that the right hon. Gentleman feels that he has to provide to meet the anxieties of English Tory Members now that the poll tax chickens have come home to roost? Does he realise that the maximum contribution change from £70 to £75 for 1990–91, implies an inflation rate for that year of 7·5 per cent.? Is that a forecast? If so, has he told the Chancellor?

Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Gentleman has listened to the statement, he would know that the aggregate external finance for England is £1·8 billion higher than the current year, which is an 8·5 per cent. increase. Those are the figures. The fact that they are higher than what we firmly believe the rate of inflation will be shows that this is quite a generous grant settlement.

Mr. Alistair Burt: On behalf of non-domestic ratepayers in the metropolitan borough of Bury, I welcome the anticipated 20 per cent. drop in their rate bills. Will my right hon. Friend reassure domestic ratepayers—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Give the hon. Member a chance.

Mr. Burt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can my right hon. Friend reassure domestic ratepayers as soon as possible that the main determinant of the community charge will be local authority expenditure rather than Government expenditure policy?

Mr. Ridley: I have no doubt that the very large reduction in business rate poundages which will reach the north with the introduction of the new system will make an immense difference to the prosperity of those areas and to their ability to maintain high levels of employment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition of that.
We hope that the full community charge will begin to take effect as quickly as possible so that we get full accountability of councils to their electors. There will be two elements for a few years—the charge and the safety net—but that should not divert people from the essential task of looking at their community charge as a ready reckoner to assess the efficiency of their council.

Mr. Timothy Wood: I welcome the expected reduction in the business rate in Stevenage, which means that local businesses will be free from the high-spending local authority in that respect. The statement about safety nets clearly demonstrates the iniquities of the present system. I only wish that we were able to get rid of some of those iniquities rather more sharply.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right on both points. This statement begins to get rid of the iniquities of resource equalisation rather more quickly than was originally expected.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the silence that greeted his statement before the unnatural break and the disarray that we have since heard from Conservative Members shows that the headless chickens are coming home to roost?
The attitude of those of us who are already suffering the poll tax and those of us who served on the Standing Committee on the Local Government Finance Bill who warned exactly what would happen to Tory Members who are now finding out about it is one of hell mend them, because they will find out a great deal more before it takes effect. Instead of spending money on bogus statistics, will the Secretary of State consider spending a little to set up a helpline for Tory Members who lose their seats because of the poll tax? There are plenty of counsellors available among former Tory Members in Scotland who lost their seats because of the poll tax.

Mr. Ridley: There are not nearly as many former hon. Members as there would be if there were a local income tax and capital value rates. In Cunninghame, North the Labour party would lose every seat if it brought that in.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of the voters of Lancashire, West who, as a consequence of his listening to the arguments about a safety net, will now benefit by £25 a head? Will my right hon. Friend look at the figures in front of him for the Labour councils which surround Tory-controlled West Lancashire? He will know that every one of them—Knowsley, Wigan, St. Helens and Liverpool—will pay at least £40 or £50 a head, despite the fact that West Lancashire will contribute towards the safety net.

Mr. Ridley: It is a curious fact that the vast majority of authorities which can spend below their GREs are Tory-controlled and the vast majority which spend above their GREs are Labour-controlled. The reason for high community charges is high spending by inefficient Labour councils, and nothing else.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: Will my right hon. Friend accept my thanks for seeing me and other delegates prior to this announcement, when we asked for a fairer system? Will he please record my bitter disappointment on behalf of the Birmingham ratepayers at the fact that this so-called juster technical system which he has found is one which increases even more the injustice faced by Birmingham poll tax payers? Will he think of a transfer to national taxation in line with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon)? That would mean that after the summer recess, we could, once and for all, do away with this iniquitous system which disprivileges the good housekeepers and is to the benefit of the bad.

Mr. Ridley: I must refer my hon. Friend to the fact that Birmingham currently contributes towards resource equalisation. The new system will phase that out. That is what we are doing, and that will be the beginning of the end of the rating system to which he objects so greatly.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many believe that the safety net provisions place a premium upon extravagance and a penalty on prudence? Will he confirm that the community charge payers of Barnet will be asked to pay £55, while the community charge payers of Islington will receive £173? In view of the lack of gratitude on the part of the recipients, will he consider ending this compulsory tax on Barnet's community charge payers? Will he confirm that the cost savings under competitive tendering can be as high as 20 per cent.? What would be the cost to the community of a local income tax?

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is quite right—massive savings are available under the new competitive tendering, which authorities can take much further than they are required to do by the law. That is one way, among others, in which they can reduce their community charges. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who sat through the statement today, would agree that there are at least as many people who are grateful for the safety net as there are who resent having to contribute to it. It is obviously difficult to get the balance right, but I believe that in this case we have.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is well known that as you are Mr. Speaker, and stand as Mr. Speaker, you clearly cannot ask a question of a Minister, but you must have a constituency interest. I wonder whether I could assist you, Mr. Speaker, by asking the Secretary of State why, in Croydon——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman could best assist me by keeping his mouth shut.

BILL PRESENTED

LOCATION OF PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL

Ms. Dawn Primarolo, supported by Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Ms. Clare Short, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Ms. Harriet Harman, Mr. Frank Doran, Mr. George Howarth and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, presented a Bill to restrict the location of pornographic material; to provide for licensed vendors of pornographic material; to extend the powers of trading standards officers; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 188.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Bristol Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Poll Tax (Popular Consultation)

Mr. John Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the holding of a referendum before the coming into operation of the Local Government Act 1988.
After that statement, this could not be a more opportune moment to bring my Bill to the House. It will allay some of the fears of worried Conservative Members because it brings a solution to their problem: we should not have the poll tax. The Poll Tax (Popular Consultation) Bill is not an extension of the debate on the pros and cons of the poll tax which appear to be continually debated in this House. Debates have taken place in every town and city which have involved the community in the widest sense. Churches of every denomination have participated, as have charity organisations and every sector of the community, including bishops, priests and vicars. An overwhelming majority have reached the common conclusion that the poll tax is an unfair, regressive tax which discriminates against those with low incomes.
The public at large have a more detailed knowledge of the poll tax than of any other Government legislation which has passed through the House this Session. They are aware that the poll tax makes no allowance for extreme differentials in income or wealth. The public are aware that an elderly pensioner can be required to pay as much as a millionaire or a millionairess. The public want a fair local tax, determined by locally elected representatives and based on ability to pay, with a rebate scheme which would fully offset any hardship which a tax on low incomes would otherwise inflict.
The public have made an informed decision and have rejected a tax which resorts to bailiffs and the seizure of household goods. They have rejected a tax that will get its pound of flesh by imprisonment and, most importantly, they have rejected a tax which fundamentally threatens their democratic right to vote.
My Bill deals specifically with that right as a poll tax issue. My Bill will fully restore that fundamental democratic right, and because it offers every British citizen an extension of his or her democratic rights, its consideration by the House could not be more opportune. Its democratic expression has an affinity with the wider expression of democracy conveyed in the current celebrations of the French revolution, an important landmark in human rights, which coincides with other important democratic revolutions that have been enacted across eastern Europe.
They are all important landmarks in the advancement of the individual and the collective rights of the people. They are major historical events that tend to eclipse and overshadow the English revolutions, especially the peasant revolutions, when the general will of the people forced a dictatorial sovereign to remove a poll tax from the statute book. Regrettably, previous British sovereigns were no respecters of people's rights and offenders were the recipients of the ultimate in physical lessons, and had their heads removed. Steps were taken through the parliamentary process to prevent any succeeding sovereign from challenging the democratic rights of the people.
However, those parliamentary changes failed to foresee or anticipate political usurpation, intentionally or unintentionally, of the people's rights. That would require a Bill of Rights. Until that is on the statute book, I do not suggest that we should revert to the executioner's axe and, although I have heard people say that the Prime Minister behaves like a dictator, I do not suggest that we should remove her head—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The Prime Minister is supposedly Britain's greatest advocate of human rights, and lord of the rights of every nation and its citizens. She has stomped the streets of Moscow on walkabouts and met Russian dissidents. This weekend, she emphatically defined the high value that she supposedly places on the rights of the British people when she admonished the French President and reminded him of the Magna Carta. She supposedly stands spiritually shoulder to shoulder with Lech Walesa and the Polish people's rights. I ask her to stop denying the British people their rights. If the Prime Minister insists on continuing her charade, it will take Bills like mine to put her and her Government in their place.
I consulted the Prime Minister about a poll tax referendum. I wrote to her on 31 May, before the European elections, and said that I should like to make the most economic use of the polling station facility provided at considerable public cost to carry out a Coventry, North-East poll tax referendum, with the poll tax forms to be provided at my expense. She referred that request to the Home Office for its adjudication, and the Minister's response on 12 June explained that the polling station facility could not be used in that dual manner.
Having been denied that facility, and in the knowledge that the imposition of the poll tax is a matter of serious concern, not only to my constituents but to every hon. Member's constituents, I have introduced this Bill, knowing that it will have the widest possible support. Any Gallup or MORI poll would confirm that, as it would give every elector the same right of access to the ballot box as the Prime Minister imposed on every trade union member.
While this simply worded Bill may not be as visually impressive as the multi-page, word-saturated documents churned out by the Government, it is the most important Bill to come before the House this Session. It gets to the heart of the matter. It recognises the genuine will of the people as it provides them, in 30 frugal words, with the right to exercise their choice on the Government's infamous poll tax. I am grateful for this opportunity to bring the Bill before the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Bob Cryer, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mrs. Audrey Wise and Mr. Harry Cohen.

POLL TAX (POPULAR CONSULTATION)

Mr. John Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to require the holding of a referendum before the coming into operation of the Local Government Act 1988: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 October and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

Points of Order

Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am amazed that the Bill moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) received the unanimous support of the House. It concerns a crucial matter, relating directly to the statement that we have just heard, and the critical questions that it raises. In view of the unanimity of the House, will you use your good offices to see whether there is any means by which we could, even at this late stage of the Session, facilitate the quick passage of the Bill, as it would not be opposed?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Second Reading is on 20 October.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We shall soon deal with 15 statutory instruments. Three of them carry on the Order Paper the notification:
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn the special attention of the House to the Instrument in its Twenty Sixth Report".
That report is in the Vote Office, but the Committee has not been able to conform with the Standing Orders and make a full report because it examined these instruments, which were drawn to our attention by our counsel, yesterday afternoon at 4.15 when we had our usual weekly meeting. That means that the evidence, which was taken over a period lasting well over an hour from civil servants involved in the drafting of the instruments, and which contains a great deal of background and elucidation material, cannot be provided for the House. In those circumstances, although this is not a point for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I feel that the statutory instruments should be withdrawn. By crowding through these statutory instruments, the Government are preventing a Standing Order from being operated. I wanted to draw that to your attention.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but it is for the House to decide whether it wishes to have regard to the Committee's opinion. There is nothing out of order about the motions before us. This is a matter for the House to debate and for the House to take a decision on at the end of the debate.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: We should really get on with motions 1 to 15 on water and public health.

Mr. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on two issues. I hope that you will be able to consult Mr. Speaker on the first point, which concerns the problem that the papers with the statement were said to be available in the Vote Office, but were not. This problem has put Mr. Speaker and the occupant of the Chair, whoever that person is, in difficulty on numerous occasions. It is time that Mr. Speaker, you and others involved found a better way for making papers relevant to statements available to hon. Members when the statements are made. It is even more appalling that those papers are handed out to members of the press; they get a better service than hon. Members.
On several occasions the Secretary of State referred to a question that he had to answer, but it was a planted question, No. 215. This happens time after time. We always recognise those questions on the Order Paper because they bear that mark that shows that they were handed in for answer the day before.
What is particularly galling is that other hon. Members may have asked similar questions some time before, and got the answer afterwards in the reply to the planted question. The Chair should be making it firmly known—it is your job, Madam Deputy Speaker, to protect the interests of Back-Benchers—that the practice of Ministers, through their parliamentary private secretaries, of asking one of their colleagues to table these planted questions is to be deprecated and should be stopped.

Madam Deputy Speaker: On the first point that the hon. Gentleman raised, I am sure that Mr. Speaker and my other colleagues in the Chair appreciate the sympathy that the hon. Gentleman and others have extended. I agree with what he said. As to the second point, it is a matter of procedure. I ask the hon. Gentleman to ponder it carefully and seek to raise the matter with the Select Committee on Procedure.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This concerns the documents appended to the statement, which we were told by the Secretary of State today referred to a parliamentary question outlining what the Secretary of State believes to be Labour policy. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is pure unadulterated lies and rubbish. Now——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker has already dealt with that matter. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, I must listen to it, but it must be a genuine point of order and not a matter for debate.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: This is not a question for debate. I have tabled many questions over the past 10 years that I have been a Member of Parliament and on a number of occasions I have received the reply that questions cannot be answered because of disproportionate costs. In replying to that question, the Secretary of State has set a precedent because he has accepted that a certain question can be answered at a particular cost. I put it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Chair should establish what the cost was so that in future, when questions are not answered because of disproportionate cost, we might have the basis for appeal to the Chair to have the questions answered.
This is not a spurious matter. It is important because the precedent has been set for expensive questions to be answered. The Chair and Parliament should know what the cost was in this instance so that in future we can measure whether it is fair and reasonable for a Department to state that a question cannot be answered on the basis of disproportionate cost.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When a Minister responds to a question referring to the Opposition's policy—this arises during questions to departmental Ministers and especially during questions to the Prime Minister—the occupant of the Chair will invariably remind the Minister that it is for the Government to state what their policy is and that we should not respond by referring to the
Opposition's policy. That is because the Minister is responsible for Government policy. He has no responsibility for the Opposition's policy.
This afternoon we have seen an extension of the practice that Mr. Speaker deprecates during Question Time. When Mr. Speaker says that an hon. Member cannot continue asking questions about matters for which the Minister has no responsibility, the hon. Member must resume his place. In this instance, the Secretary of State for the Environment answered a planted question from one of his hon. Friends about Labour party policy——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is not Labour party policy.

Mr. Skinner: I should have said "suggested" Labour party policy or "alleged" Labour party policy. As I have said, we have seen an extension of the practice that is deprecated by Mr. Speaker. If the practice is deprecated during oral questions, it is my opinion that the action of the Secretary of State for the Environment this afternoon should be deprecated and that it should be stopped.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is entirely a matter for the Minister. The points of order have been noted. We have a busy day before us and we must now proceed with the debate.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a new point of order?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I did ask for a ruling. I ask that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, with Mr. Speaker, should establish the cost of answering the question which was the subject of my point of order. It would set a precedent for those of us who wish to establish whether we are being fairly treated.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time. I am familiar with the way in which he is able to elicit answers from Ministers. I suggest that he might take up the matter himself and seek the answer from Ministers by the various means available to him.

Water

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1147), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following motions:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Surface Waters (Classification) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1148), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Controlled Waters (Lakes and Ponds) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1149), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Pollution (Consents for Discharges etc.) (Secretary of State Functions) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1151), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Water and Sewerage (Conservation, Access and Recreation) Code of Practice Order 1989 (S.I., 1989., No. 1152), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Director General of Water Services' Register (Inspection and Charges) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1154), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Water Reorganisation (Pensions etc.) (Designated Persons) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1155) dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Trade Effluents (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1156), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Pollution (Discharges by the National Rivers Authority) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1157), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Pollution (Radioactive Waste) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1158), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Water Supply and Sewerage Services (Customer Service Standards) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1159), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Pollution (Registers) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1160), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Water Reorganisation (Pensions etc.) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1161), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Water Appointment (Monopolies and Mergers Commission) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1162), dated 7th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Pollution (Revocations) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1150), dated 6th July 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July. be annulled.

Mrs. Taylor: The motions relate to the regulations that the Government are introducing following the passage of the Water Act 1989. We are debating—yet again in rushed circumstances—important regulations that the Government are seeking to push through with the minimum time for consultation and discussion. So great was the haste of the Government to introduce the regulations that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments had to insist on its right of proper scrutiny when the Government tried to bounce the Committee by presenting 15 sets of regulations and asking the Committee to deal with them within five days. That would have enabled the debate to take place last week, with even less time for consultation and discussion with outside groups.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said earlier, the Joint Committee had time to consider only three of the 15 sets of statutory instruments in detail. When the Committee had examined the three sets, it issued a pretty damning report in which it outlined the major defects and drew attention to sloppy drafting which should not form the basis of legislation. I hope that the Minister will clarify some of the issues that have been raised by the Committee. Its comments on the regulations are significant and important.
Everyone will agree that the water supply and water quality regulations, which relate to EC standards, are important. The Joint Committee reported that the drafting is defective and that there are unexpected uses of powers or provisions that give rise to doubt as to the vires of the regulations. Various examples are given.
The Committee queried regulation 3(6) with the Department's officials and witnesses. The Department's witnesses
admitted that the drafting of the regulations was not successful.
Similarly, the witnesses admitted that the drafting of regulation 6(2) was defective and confusing. They agreed that the drafting of regulation 8(1) was deficient. The Committee asked the witnesses for the meaning of some of the phrases contained in the regulations. The witnesses confessed that the meaning was not revealed in the text because after the making of amendments there had been an accidental failure to make consequential amendments in the text of the instrument. It is obvious that the Government have yet again put their haste to rush these regulations through before the quality of the legislation that they have enacted. I could produce further examples, but I do not wish to detain the House too long.
The Joint Committee has drawn the attention of the House to the fact that, on the basis of its discussions and investigations, it has found an unusual and unexpected use of powers. The same criticisms are made of the water supply, sewerage service and customer service standard regulations.
When the Joint Committee was discussing these matters and taking evidence from departmental witnesses, the Department gave some assurances that amending regulations to rectify some of the drafting omissions would come into force on 1 September. We are nearing the summer recess and I ask the Minister what opportunity there will be for parliamentary scrutiny of the amendments. We have precious little time today to discuss 15 sets of regulations. If they are all as defective as the three that the Joint Committee identified, a host of defective regulations will be introduced while Ministers and their officials talk about possible consequent

amendments that it will not be possible to subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will clarify the position. It is not good enough for Parliament to be asked to pass defective regulations which the Department has admitted that it intends to amend before they come into operation.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the hon. Lady agree that in these matters a balance must be observed? She will note that SI No. 1159 provides for the payment of penalty charges for unsatisfactory service. Is it not entirely desirable that the payment of such charges should become possible at the earliest date? Would not the course that she has outlined, where we might have to wait quite a long time for minor and technical defects to be rectified, prevent customers from availing themselves of the benefit of an entirely positive regulation?

Mrs. Taylor: The customer will not get the so-called benefits of the system in September. It will be quite some time before it takes effect. The problem is that the Government are intent on pushing ahead with privatisation as quickly as possible. That being so, they are not willing to consider the interests of consumers or of others. Our discussions on the Water Bill, as it then was, have been marked at every stage by the ridiculous haste and curtailment of debate which have been imposed by Ministers.
Fortunately, the public are not as naive as Ministers would wish and they have rumbled the consequences of privatisation despite, or perhaps because of, the Government's panic. There is no doubt that Ministers are longing for the recess so that they can make even more statements relevant and important to privatisation—perhaps on debt write-off or the value of the K factor—without even the degree of parliamentary scrutiny being allowed today. Given all the current speculation, it appears that Ministers responsible for the bad handling of the Act are likely to be out of the Department, even out of the Government, before the policy is out of the woods.
By allowing only three hours debate on 15 regulations, is the Minister saying that they are not sufficiently important to warrant more time? I believe that they are potentially very important. They could have helped to protect us from the worst consequences of privatisation—the threat to land, the problems that consumers will face in dealing with a private monopoly and problems with access to information.
A whole stream of regulations must be debated today in a short time. For example, there are the Surface Waters (Classification) Regulations, which comprise one group that we are happy to accept. I wonder why the Government accept 50 mg of nitrate per litre as an appropriate minimum standard for surface water extracted for drinking water when they opposed a draft EC directive set at the same limit. Is it simply that the Government are schizophrenic and will not agree to limits for Europe that they will agree to in Britain, or has there been a mistake and we are to have standards higher than some parts of the Government might wish? Of course, we do not make any complaints about that.
I hope that the Minister will answer one important question: to which waters will the regulations apply? Will he give us a straight answer? I hope that he will confirm that they will apply to all waters where there is abstraction


for drinking water. I hope that he will tell us tonight and not say that we will have an answer in a few weeks when everyone is on holiday.
Another set of regulations that cause concern, and that are certainly not adequate to give the protection that we need post-privatisation, are the Control of Pollution (Registers) Regulations. We acknowledge, even if the Secretary of State does not, that the public wants proper access to information and will increasingly demand it. The regulations are inadequate because they do not make it easy—indeed, they make it difficult—for the public to have meaningful access to critical information. Information is to be stored in a few places, in a technical form only, and there will be a charging system for access. That makes it difficult, to say the least, to obtain the information that the public may require. In addition, some water authorities define certain samples as operational and omit them from the register. That creates a huge potential for abuse.
We know that the Secretary of State has a new-found concern for accurate information. However, even before his statement this afternoon the Opposition had concluded that the old adage should be rewritten and that we should now say that there are lies, damn lies, statistics and Ridleys. The accuracy of the Secretary of State's information is—if I can say it—rather far from accurate.
We are not surprised that the Secretary of State and the Minister have not taken the opportunity provided by the regulations to improve public access to verified information. I hope that the EC directive on access to environmental information will ensure that information is not only available, but available in a form that can be readily used and readily understood by the public. It is a shame that the EC appears to be giving protection that should more appropriately have been provided by the Government.
The EC plays the same role in the drinking water regulations. It goes without saying that we welcome the transposition of the 1980 EC directive on drinking water quality into British law. After all, we pressed for that in Committee. We are concerned about the sloppy drafting referred to by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The transposition of that directive into British law takes us no further forward in the implementation of the directive. Only last week the Secretary of State pleaded with the European Commission for more time to implement a directive that the Government signed in 1980 and that should have been implemented by 1985. The Secretary of State said during the debate on Lords amendments to the Water Act that he could not accept the House of Lords deadline for compliance by 1993 because it was against Community law which gave a deadline of 1985.
We learned today that the Secretary of State was no more successful in pulling the wool over the eyes of the Commissioner than he has been in persuading the British public of the virtues of privatisation. No doubt he put the case badly. The basic position remains, and all outstanding action against the United Kingdom remains active. The Commissioner, despite the Secretary of State's comments to the contrary, is still not satisfied that the British Government have produced a reasonable timetable for compliance with the drinking water directive. The European Commission will take action against the United Kingdom on a variety of issues.

Mr. William Cash: Given the Opposition's feeling about this matter, is it not possible that, far from the Government taking a negative stance on the purity of water, they are in fact ensuring that any standards that are adopted are applicable to this country and its rivers and geological strata, which are not similar to those in the European Community? Are not the Government defending the British people, including my constituents, to ensure that there is water purity consistent with what we need?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's statement astounds me. The Government signed the 1980 directive and agreed to the standards and parameters laid down in it. Ministers have not said that they do not intend to implement the directive; they have simply failed to make any progress. Do the Government now intend to change their policy and, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, say that they should not implement the directive?

The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): The hon. Lady has failed to deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). Of course the Government intend to comply with the directive, including in the area represented by my hon. Friend, but we are not prepared to comply with it using technology that is unproven and may, in itself, lead to health risks for my hon. Friend's constituents.

Mrs. Taylor: That is complete nonsense. The Minister is looking to make excuses, because he wants to go hack on Government assurances on compliance. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) mentioned geological problems. There is scope in the directive for derogations where such problems exist. Earlier, the Minister accepted the need to implement the directive. If he is going back on that, the Commission will be very interested to hear about it.

Mr. Howard: I am not going back on it, but I hope that the hon. Lady is not challenging the bona fides of the advice on which we are acting, and which we put in detail to the Commission, on the denitrification technology that is necessary to comply with the nitrate directive in two areas of the country, including that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. That technology is not yet proven, and we cannot be satisfied that it would not itself pose risks to health. Is the hon. Lady challenging that evidence? If so, on what basis?

Mrs. Taylor: I am making the point that the Government are looking for excuses to delay action yet again. The Government have had since 1980 to produce their plans, but they deliberately prevaricated and delayed. They are now looking for even more excuses.

Mr. Michael Lord: It would be of great assistance to many right hon. and hon. Members if the hon. Lady would answer precisely the question just put to her by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister.

Mrs. Taylor: The Government obviously decided that they need to look for new excuses. When we debated the Lords amendments, the Secretary of State told the House that there was no need to worry about the problems surrounding nitrates because he would secure relaxations of the directive from the EC. Obviously he has not done so, so the Government are trying to change their tactics. We should be clear where responsibility lies. The Government signed the directive in 1980 and had nine years in which to


come up with a method of dealing with the problem. Instead, they sat on the problem, and now refuse to deal with it because they want to prepare the water industry for privatisation.

Mr. Howard: I shall deal with that point in due course, but will the hon. Lady stop prevaricating and answer the question that I put to her? Is she challenging the scientific basis on which we have yet to test the technology that is necessary to achieve compliance in respect of Stafford? If so, on what basis? Such matters are far too serious to be dealt with irresponsibly, as the hon. Lady is doing.

Mrs. Taylor: I am challenging whether the Government are serious about their intention to comply with the drinking water directive. The EC has been compelled to take action against the British Government in many areas. I refer to the lax interpretation of the lead parameter in Scotland, nitrites in Norwich, levels of aluminium and bacteriological standards in Bradford, levels of aluminium, lead, polyforms and high pH2 in Calderdale, nitrates in Redbridge, aluminium in Birmingham, and illegal derogation from the required aluminium levels in Yorkshire. Time and time again, the Commission asked the Government for their plans for complying with the 1980 directive. I repeat that, after nine years, the Government have still not come up with any.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Taylor: I have given way on a number of occasions, and I have revealed exactly what are the Government's intentions.
Contrary to the Secretary of State's statements when the Lords amendments were debated, there is no prospect of a general relaxation of the directive. The regulatory committee established to monitor compliance with the directive is charged with the responsibility
to improve and accelerate practical implementation of these Directives, and while retaining the protection provided to man and the environment …
As the Minister and his officials know, the only likely change will be a more comprehensive specification of the parameters for pesticides. Any other changes are likely to involve the setting of higher, not lower, parameters for substances such as aluminium.
The Water Supply and Sewerage Services (Customer Service Standards) Regulations 1989 have been proclaimed by the Minister as giving the consumer a better deal. However, by comparison with the consumers' charter that we advocated in Committee, the regulations are pretty meagre, and they are totally inadequate for the dangers posed to the consumer by privatisation.
The Minister consulted on those regulations, but unfortunately ignored many of the representations he received. Certainly he ignored many of those made by the National Consumer Council, though he may have listened to the people who hope to run the industry post-privatisation. The National Consumer Council, like ourselves, welcomes the basic principle of a guaranteed standards scheme and of a compensation scheme, but there is much that the council would like to change. It points out that the arrangements for consumer redress are complex and not comprehensive, when they should be simple and easy to understand and use. The NCC also comments:

Because the balance of power between individual consumers and a monopolistic supplier"—
such as the water plcs will be—
is weighted in favour of the industry, we believe the burden of proof must rest largely with the water and sewerage companies.
The council has many arguments with the Secretary of State and with the Minister for Water and Planning, and is disappointed that its representations were not taken on board.
The regulations lay down the arrangements that should be observed if appointments made by the undertakers are not kept, yet such appointments will be imposed by the undertakers and will not be the subject of agreement between the company and the customer. Moreover, the customer will have to prove that the record of an appointment made by the company is incorrect, which it will be very difficult for the individual customer to do.
As to the interruption of water supplies, obviously the hon. and learned Gentleman listened to the industry rather than to the consumer organisations. The draft regulations stipulated that there should be 24 hours' notice of an interruption of supply, but now the Minister proposes no minimum period of notice. The regulations incorporate a number of glaring anomalies. They include the provision that anyone in debt to a water company will not be entitled to compensation. That is likely to create problems, especially if one bears in mind what is likely to happen to water charges and that the prospect of metering is looming. Both will lead to an increased number of debts and a higher percentage of disputed bills. All in all, the regulations do little to strengthen the hand of the consumer, and I hope that the Minister will think again about them.
Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will this evening answer the question asked of him by a number of consumer organisations. Will he confirm that any undertaker that breaks the code of practice and does not follow the regulations' guidelines will be liable to lose its licence? As even some Conservative Members said, one is dealing with a private monopoly which will pose many dangers to the consumer.

Mr. Edward Leigh: This is a matter of grave importance to my constituents as I represent an area that has been accused of being high in nitrates. I hope that the hon. Lady will answer my question; she has not done so yet, although she has been given many opportunities. If she has her way tonight, my constituents may be put at risk.

Mrs. Taylor: rose——

Mr. Leigh: I do not want any more prevarication. My constituents may be put at risk if Labour's proposal is implemented, because the necessary technology is not available. It is about time that she answered.

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is scaremongering yet again. He knows very well that his Government signed that directive and agreed the limits on nitrate. The Secretary of State may think that he knows better than the EC and the health organisations what constitutes a safe nitrate level, but I assure him that his consumers would like the 1980 water directive to be implemented.

Mr. Keith Raffan: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Taylor: No, I have already given way far too many times.
Let me say a little about what many consider one of the most important of all the regulations, and one of the most controversial. It is controversial because the Minister has been very misleading. I refer to what will happen to the land owned by the water authorities. What are the implications for conservation, access and recreation after privatisation?
Throughout our discussions the Minister has tried to play down the problem of the protection of public land—for, until privatisation, it remains public. We all know that he faces a dilemma. The water authorities own nearly half a million acres of land—much of it in areas of outstanding natural beauty, even if not all of it is formally classified as such. The Government have bowed to different pressures at different times. In the House of Lords they introduced first one and then another set of amendments, and then came up with the proposal that a share of the proceeds would go to the public. That was, at the least, an admission that land sales would result in a gain.
The Minister's basic problem is that if he places too many restrictions on the use of the land he will send what are, from his point of view, the wrong signals and messages to the City. He must keep open the prospect of money to be made from the development of the land. After all, the water industry is a no-growth—or, at least, low-growth—industry, and such industries are not usually very attractive to the stock market. The land represents the "carrot". That is why the code of practice on conservation, access and recreation is full of pious intentions but is, as a whole, almost unenforceable.
The Minister is paying lip service to the protection of public access. He recognises that he must say something about it, but he is not doing anything. Neither the Water Act nor the codes of practice will necessarily prevent the water undertakers, their subsidiaries, holding companies or subsequent owners of the land from blocking public access.
That is a deliberate policy. The Minister had a choice: he could have written into the legislation real constraints on the use of land and access to it, but he chose not to. The cash-register mentality has prevailed. That is the problem with all the regulations—the interests of the new public companies come before those of consumers. That is why we shall vote against the regulations tonight.

The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): The speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) typifies the approach to the legislation that the Opposition have adopted from the outset. It was full of wild statements and allegations which the hon. Lady, when questioned, was completely unable to substantiate, although they were bound to give rise to considerable concern in her constituency as well as in those of my hon. Friends. These are serious matters, and they deserve to be dealt with seriously rather than being made the subject of the kind of trivial scaremongering that we have heard from the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is the Minister saying that people are not concerned about the quality of their drinking water? If

they are not concerned, why is the Commission receiving more and more complaints from areas where nitrates and aluminium are causing problems?

Mr. Howard: I shall be dealing with the views of the Commission. The fact remains that the hon. Lady made specific allegations about the quality of drinking water in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), and entirely failed to substantiate her challenge to the explanation that has been given of why we may not be able to comply with the Community's nitrate directive in my hon. Friend's constituency by 1993. She maintained her position with a series of generalisations that did not back up her point. That is a disgracefully irresponsible attitude, and the hon. Lady ought to be thoroughly ashamed of herself.

Mrs. Taylor: Does the Minister accept that neither I nor any other Opposition Member is taking action against the Government because of the standard of British drinking water—that it is the European Commission that is doing so?

Mr. Howard: The Commission recently issued a reasoned opinion in respect of drinking water in some restricted areas of the country. The first point to appreciate—this is something that Opposition Members do their utmost to conceal at every opportunity—is that practically every member country of the Community has already been taken to the European Court for breach of the directive. We are the only member country that has yet to appear before that court for breach of an environmental directive, and I am confident that we shall maintain our good record.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Is there not something odious and wrong about the fact that an unelected body like the European Commission can lay obligations on a sovereign country such as the United Kingdom—obligations that will cause the Government and people of this country great trouble and cost—when that body has no democratic credentials and is responsible to no one but itself? It can make these statements and make others bring forward commitments, and it is no water off its back, to coin a phrase. Is that not democratically odious, and, when he is being frank, does not my hon. and learned Friend have the strongest reservations about it?

Mr. Howard: I think that it would be unwise to travel down the road along which my hon. Friend has tempted me. He used the word "odious", however, and what I find odious are the remarks of people such as the hon. Member for Dewsbury, who, in a broadcast earlier today, welcomed the fact that this country was being taken to the European Court. That is both odious and disgraceful, and another reason for her to be thoroughly ashamed of herself.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: What I said was that I was sorry that it had come to this, and that I wished that the British Government had taken action. If the British Government are not willing to protect drinking water standards in this country, we need to use the Commission to do so. It is the Government who are acting disgracefully.

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Lady checks the transcript of her remarks, she will find that she did indeed welcome the fact that the Commission was proposing to take us to court.

Mr. Knapman: I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). Will my hon. and learned Friend therefore speculate on why the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) takes no notice of the letter dated 16 May 1989, which is available in the Library, from the gentleman who purports to have powers over this country, Carlo Ripa di Meana, who said:
I am pleased to say that these discussions have now come to a satisfactory conclusion. The amendments … along with the statement which I understand to have been made when introducing these amendments in the House of Lords, satisfy me that the UK Government intends to rectify any deficiencies in water supplies as quickly as possible taking certain practicalities into account.
Is there not an inconsistency in EEC matters?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to identify the substantial progress that we made during our discussions with the Commission. However, I want to deal with the one outstanding issue which relates to the nitrates directive and to the fact that we have said that we shall comply with it by 1993, the deadline which the Commission has set for us in all areas except two. We cannot guarantee that we shall be able to comply by 1993 in those two areas because we are not yet certain that the technology exists that can be used without risk to the health of those who live in those areas. These matters are still under discussion with the Commission. Detailed technical discussion of those matters is due to take place tomorrow between officials of the Department and officials of the Commission. I am confident that when the Commission learns at first hand of the technical details as to why it is simply not possible to give a guarantee that we shall comply in those two areas by 1993 it will see the overwhelming good sense of the British Government's case and we shall hear no more about the matter.

Mr. Chris Mullin: The Minister has had eight years to explain the technical difficulties to the EC. What has kept him?

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman had been half as assiduous during our deliberations on the Bill as he purports to be now, he would know the answer to that question because it has been given many times. The drinking water directive came into effect in 1980. As the hon. Member for Dewsbury suggested, it is perfectly true that we signed it in 1980. We, in common with many other member states, assumed that compliance with the directive would be assessed on the basis of the average of the samples that were taken. We wrote to the Commission in 1982 and set out our understanding of how compliance with the directive would be assessed. We received no answer. We assumed that we should be entitled to proceed on the basis that that would be the way in which compliance would be assessed.
Having written in 1982, we received no answer until the end of 1987 when, for the first time, we received a letter from the Commission which said that it proposed to assess compliance with the directive not on the basis of the average of the samples that were taken but on the basis that each and every sample that was taken had to comply with the directive. We are prepared to comply on that basis. We have not sought to challenge that interpretation of the directive, but any reasonable person must appreciate that, since that letter arrived only at the end of 1987, to comply with the directive on that basis would inevitably

take a little longer than would have been the case if compliance could have been assessed on the basis of the average of the samples, which is what we had assumed to be the case during the long period from 1982 to the end of 1987.
That point arose during our discussions last week with the Commission. The version that I have put to the House is in no way in dispute. When I put this version to the Commission, there was no riposte, or come-back, or any attempt to suggest that it was inaccurate in any way. That is the answer to the question of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). It is also the answer to the question that was put more than once by the hon. Member for Dewsbury. That is the reason why we have not yet fully complied in every respect with the European Community's drinking water directive.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. and learned Friend deserves the sympathy of the House for having to deal with a Commission that is so lax in the way that it operates. I hope that he will bear in mind in his dealings with the Commission the profound dissatisfaction that many Conservative Members feel about the way in which detailed legislation that is proposed in this country is interfered with. I hope that he will do his best to ensure—as I am certain that he will—that the Commission bears fully in mind the needs of each member state when considering such detailed proposals.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps the last observation that I need to make on the matter is that I am confident, as I have already said, that our discussions with the Commission will lead to a satisfactory resolution of the problem without the need for the Commission to take us to the European Court. If the Commission were, notwithstanding all these matters, to take us to the European Court on the issue, I can think of few things that would be more calculated to bring the Commission into disrepute.
As for the remarks of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, is so far as they concern the regulations that are before the House and the Opposition prayer that the regulations should be annulled——

Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Howard: Before I deal with the hon. Lady's remarks, I shall give way again to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Marlow: I should like my hon. and learned Friend's views on one other subject. Is it appropriate that a European institution should be responsible for deciding the quality of the drinking water that comes out of the taps in each member state? Should not each member state be able to decide for itself? My hon. and learned Friend has said that he is confident that we shall meet the standards and that we always do, whereas other countries do not. Is he confident that the Portuguese, the French and southern Italy will be able to meet those standards? Are we being picked on? Is there some degree of political spite by the Commission?

Mr. Howard: I can reassure my hon. Friend on his last point. There can be no question of spite. It is certainly not true that we are being picked on, because practically every other member state in the Community has already been taken to court for breach of this directive. My hon. Friend


mentioned Portugal. Portugal is a shining exception. It has not yet been taken to the European Court. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that the regulations do not yet apply to Portugal since it became a member of the EC only recently.

Mr. Lord: Before my hon. and learned Friend leaves the question of nitrates, is it not the case that throughout most of the country there is no difficulty in meeting the standards but that, in some parts of the country, because of unusual agricultural conditions due to soil types and agricultural practices over the years, many of which are extremely complicated and will take quite a time to sort out, there are peculiar problems as a result of nitrates? They can be removed from drinking water by means of blending and diluting the water in other ways, and that is what we do when we can. However, in order scientifically or chemically to remove nitrates from the water we need new technology which, as yet, we cannot be certain about. Therefore, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, it would be dangerous for us to proceed too quickly. The Government are looking at agricultural practices in those areas with a view to doing something about them, but will if not take some time? Is not my hon. and learned Friend moving forward as fast as he possibly can, given those limitations?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I agree entirely with what he has said, and I am grateful for his intervention which has entirely accurately expressed the position. There is only one important point that I ought to add to what he has said before we leave the subject completely. It is important that people should not be alarmed by the Opposition's scaremongering tactics and their irresponsibility. Even in those few areas where the directive's nitrates level is exceeded, it is important to appreciate that all our advice is to the effect that there is no danger whatever to people's health.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury used generalisations about the regulations and repeated the criticisms of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. We accept its valuable criticisms. We shall put those matters right by means of amending regulations as soon as possible. We have not heard from the hon. Lady any reasons why the House should strike down these regulations. That is what the debate is about and what the Opposition's prayer asks the House to do—to strike down these regulations, which put in place the detail of the regulatory structure that is to be provided under the Water Act 1989 and provide the means of achieving those fundamental environmental improvements to which we are completely committed and which will secure for our people the cleaner water environment that they want.
We spent over 300 hours debating the Water Bill. Hardly one of those hours passed without our being told by the Labour party how keen it was to see environmental improvements put in place. At every turn Labour Members assured us that they recognised the mistakes that their party had made and that their record in government was lamentable. They said that they now wanted to improve matters and put those improvements into place. At the first opportunity of translating those words into action in respect of these regulations, their reaction is to pray against them, strike them down and deny our people the means of improvement that the regulations represent.
What do the regulations achieve? To what do the Opposition object so violently that they wish to strike them down? Are they the water drinking regulations? For the first time, they incorporate directly into the law of England and Wales the European Community's drinking water directive and, in many respects, go beyond it, imposing standards more stringent and demanding that those in the directive. Our view—this may be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—is that the Commission should not be the final arbiter of drinking water standards in this country and there are respects in which we should go further than the Commission's directive would suggest. When that is the case, we do not hesitate to do so, and that is what the regulations provide.
For hour after hour during our debates on the Water Bill, the Opposition told us how keen they were to see the drinking water directive incorporated into our law. We were criticised for not incorporating it directly into statute. Now we have brought forward regulations that will achieve the incorporation of the drinking water directive, and more, into our law. What on earth are the Opposition doing voting against it, seeking to strike it down, seeking to deny our people the benefits that this provision will secure?
Why do the Opposition want to strike down the regulations that will give effect to customer service standards and the payments that the new companies will have to make when they breach them? The regulations provide for the £5 cash payment or credit for each occasion or day on which certain standards are not met. Why do the Opposition want to deny that benefit to customers of the privatised water industry?
Why do the Opposition want to strike down the regulations that provide for some of the details of the operations of the National Rivers Authority, increasingly recognised as the strongest environmental protection agency in Europe? Hour after hour in debate on the Water Bill we were told that the NRA lacked teeth. In many respects, these regulations give it those teeth. The Opposition's immediate reaction is to seek to extract them by striking down these regulations.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, contrary to the views that are consistently expressed by the Opposition, including the Front Bench, on matters relating to water and water pollution, Conservative Governments have consistently—all the way through, from 1875, to 1936 and 1974—introduced legislation to improve trade effluents and deal with pollution? The whole of the Opposition's policy is constructed on a consistent policy of hypocrisy.

Mr. Howard: I know far better than to take issue with my hon. Friend on any matter relating to the 19th century, but I am happy to be able to agree fully not only with his reference to what happened in that century but with his more recent references. He is right; we have always taken these matters seriously. One need look no further than the history of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Labour Government's shameful neglect to implement it and do anything that would have enabled the public: to play a part in monitoring water pollution. Labour's record—or lack of it—speaks for itself.
Why does the Labour party wish to strike down the provision for the code of practice on conservation, access


and recreation? This document, in draft, was described by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), whom I am delighted to see in his place, as fine in principle and welcomed by many organisations. Since then it has been further improved. It is an important step in ensuring that the privatised water industry acts in accordance with the considerable duties laid upon it in the Water Act. What on earth is the Labour party doing in seeking to strike down the order that gives effect to that code of practice? Labour's attitude passes all comprehension.
I shall explain to the House exactly what the regulations and orders will achieve and why it is so important for the future of our water environment that they be approved by the House. The drinking water quality regulations are perhaps the most important of all these measures. If there were any doubts about the Government's commitment to high quality water supplies and to full implementation of the Community's drinking water directive, those doubts must surely now be laid to rest. The regulations comprise a comprehensive system for safeguarding the quality of our water supplies.

Sir Hugh Rossi: My hon. and learned Friend has just said that the regulations are a comprehensive scheme for protecting our water supply. I understand that the regulations relate only to drinking water. As he knows, the Environment Select Committee was concerned with wider problems of water quality. Can my hon. and learned Friend say when those other matters—for example, river quality—will be tackled and, in particular, give the timetable for laying down water quality objectives under section 105 of the Water Act?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am dealing with the measures that cover the drinking water regulations. Other regulations before the House touch on those wider matters, including the powers of the National Rivers Authority and the extent to which the public will have access to records on river water quality. My hon. Friend is right: the regulations do not deal with river water quality standards.
We want to deal with those matters as soon as we reasonably can, but I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that it would be sensible to await the NRA's advice before these standards are set. That is one of the more important functions of the NRA. It will advise the Secretary of State on the setting of the standards and, when they have been set, the NRA will have the important task of regulating discharges to ensure that those standards are met. We are some way off putting those standards into place, for the good reason—which I hope that my hon. Friend will accept—that it is important to have the NRA's advice before we take that step.
The drinking water regulations fully incorporate the stringent requirements of the Community directive directly into our law and go well beyond it in a number of important respects. They make it absolutely clear that all water supplies must comply not only with the European Community's quality standards but with 14 additional national standards. These include controls on certain chlorinated solvents, copper and zinc and acidity. The lead

standard is also tighter than the one set in the directive. We believe that it is important to continue reducing people's exposure to lead from any source.
The regulations provide for frequent monitoring and analysis. They lay down minimum sampling frequencies far higher than those in the directive. For example, the regulations specify monitoring frequencies for aluminium, iron and manganese at least four times higher than those in the directive. They require sampling normally to be done at the consumer's tap and impose requirements relating to the collection and analysis of samples, with laboratories subjected to independent quality control checks. In addition, the drinking water inspectorate to be established shortly will check on the water undertakers' monitoring and analysis.
There are a number of new requirements for water treatment. All water supplied will have to meet certain minimum treatment requirements. Many more water supplies than now will have to be treated to reduce plumbo-solvency. No new chemical or product will be able to be used in treatment or mains relining unless its use has been approved by the Secretary of State.
The availability of information on water quality is crucial. People are entitled to full information about the quality of their water supply. For the first time, comprehensive information on water quality will be published regularly in a way that highlights whether supplies are complying with the quality standards and, if they are not, what is being done about it. A public record containing information about analytical results for every water supply zone will be established from next January. It will show clearly whether samples comply with the standards set in the regulations, particulars of any relaxations from the standards granted by the Secretary of State, details of any undertakings given under section 20(5)(b) of the Water Act for each zone and progress with those undertakings.
The public record will be held at all water offices normally open to the public, and the address and telephone number of one of these offices will be on the annual water bill sent to each customer.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that there will be a charge for access to that information?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady made that allegation in the course of her remarks. She is wrong about that as she has been in so many other respects. No charge will be made for access to that information.

Mrs. Taylor: Is the Minister saying, therefore, that there will be completely open access to and complete accountability of all information? Can the Minister go further and say whether that information will be presented in a form that is understandable by the layman, or are we to see computer print-outs such as the present print-outs, which are coded and virtually unintelligible to the layman? That is not proper access to information, is it?

Mr. Howard: Here again we see the Labour party's attitude——

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Answer the question.

Mr. Howard: We see it at its most unattractive. Information will be available in the form in which it becomes available to the water undertakers. They will


provide information about the samples that they take. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that someone else should edit the information and put it in a manner that, she says, would then be understandable by the public? Who would be the first to complain in that case that the figures were being doctored, if not the hon. Lady herself?

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister want the public to have access to meaningful information or not?

Mr. Howard: I do, and that is why the information is being made available in the way in which I have suggested.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. and learned Friend will probably know that in the gas industry, for example, consumers are entitled when they receive their hills to tick a box saying that they want a declaration of calorific value supplied to them. Will my hon. and learned Friend examine the method used in the gas industry to see whether it might be a useful way for consumers to ask for information about water supplies? Does my hon. and learned Friend also agree that the Opposition are talking sheer rubbish? I doubt whether one in a million people want to waste time on this. Only those who are stirring up this nonsense will want to. Those of us who have been drinking tap water for many years are surviving perfectly safely and do not want this nonsense perpetrated.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is correct in describing the Opposition's remarks as absolute nonsense. I cannot make an estimate of the number of people who will want access to these records and information, but I am determined that anyone who wants to should be able to gain access and see the information. That is what the regulations provide. On my hon. Friend's first point, I will study the matters to which he referred. However, he will appreciate that there are considerable differences between the gas and water industries and it may not be possible to adopt the precedent in the way he suggested.

Mr. Raffan: Does not the performance of members of the Opposition Front Bench on access to information contrast sharply with their behaviour when in office when they kept details of discharge consent applications secret from the public? They prevented the openness and access to information that this Government are now providing.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. It is a bit rich for the hon. Member for Dewsbury to complain about the fact that the information will not be comprehensible when the Government whom she supported—and she was a Member of Parliament at that time—denied the customer access to that information altogether. It was not a question whether the information was comprehensible. The information was not available as a result of a deliberate act of a Government whom the hon. Lady supported day in and day out in the Division Lobbies.
Local authorities have a continuing interest in the quality of water supplies. The regulations will help them by requiring the water undertakers to send them additional information about supplies in their area at regular intervals. There is also a duty on water undertakers to notify both the local authority and the health authority immediately anything happens to a water supply that could be a significant health risk.
The principal task of the new drinking water inspectorate will be to check compliance with these

regulations. It will have access to all the undertakers' records and will carry out a technical audit of its results, sampling and analysis arrangements, progress on its compliance programmes and action taken where a standard is breached. If the inspectors find any shortcomings, they will need to discuss corrective action with the undertaker and advise the Secretary of State on the use of his enforcement and prosecution powers. They will also produce regular published reports on their activities.
All these measures add up to a first-class system for ensuring that the high quality of water supplies in England and Wales is maintained and further improved. Tight legally enforceable standards, full disclosure of information, Government commitment to full compliance with the Community directive and a new team of inspectors provide the proof. Perhaps the hon. Lady will explain to the House what precisely she objects to in these regulations and why she will recommend the House to vote them down later this evening.
The second group of instruments is concerned with the control of pollution. They carry forward the updating and strengthening of the pollution control system in the Water Act and give immediate effect to the new systems from the transfer date. These instruments put in place from transfer date the essential regulatory mechanisms required to maintain and carry forward the basic element of the pollution control system—the regulation of effluent discharges.
In addition to this essential structure, the Act provides new powers for pollution control, including those for setting up protection zones, and further precautions in respect of dangerous substances. It introduces systems classifications and provides the basis for the system of statutory water quality objectives to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir. H. Rossi) referred. We shall be bringing forward further statutory instruments under these new powers when we have been able to complete the detailed preparations necessary. These will include, most crucially, taking advice from the new expert body and the strongest environmental agency in Europe, the National Rivers Authority. These instruments will be available to be taken into account in the river quality survey beginning in 1990.
Let me make clear the fundamental principles underlying the regulations. The first is openness and public accountability. In the Control of Pollution Act 1974 public registers, Britain already has a notably open and accountable system of water pollution control. These regulations extend it. They provide, for instance, for the inclusion of additional material, including in due course relevant river quality objectives and other data. In addition, they remove anomalies and loopholes in present arrangements and notably they require that in future the time limit for inclusion of data on the registers is to run from the taking of the samples rather than the receipt of the analysis by the registrar. We have recognised that consent arrangements could allow excessive delay in inclusion of results on the register and we are remedying that.
The second key principle is the absolute separation of poacher and gamekeeper. The NRA will itself make few discharges, but it will make some—for instance, from fish farms. In all the circumstances, it is clearly appropriate


that some authority other than the NRA should be responsible for authorising them. Accordingly, one set of regulations modifies the Act to cover these circumstances.
The third key feature of the regulations is their rigour and comprehensiveness. It is obviously of the greatest importance that there should be public confidence in the probity and effectiveness of the system for granting applications for discharge consents. The regulations provide full and formal arrangements on such matters as public representations, appeals, and treatment of commercial confidentiality.
I ask the hon. Member for Dewsbury again—although her attention seems to have wandered from the serious matters and from the regulations, which are so important to the future of our water environment—which of these principles and which aspects of the regulations the Opposition object to.
Let me deal with the regulations on surface water classification on which the hon. Lady asked a specific question. She seems to be wincing. She took the trouble to ask a specific question and I take it that she wants it answered. If she contains herself for a moment, she will have the answer. As I said, I shall deal with the regulations on surface water classification and the associated order in respect of ponds and reservoirs. Together, they provide for due implementation of an important Community directive, directive 75/440 on the quality of surface water for drinking, and a critical link between the quality of water in the environment and in supply. They involve a first and preliminary use of the powers to introduce systems for water quality classifications, which will be used in due course for the general classification of surface waters for the establishment of quality objectives. These general classifications will cover not only standards necessary for abstraction of drinking water but also for fisheries, conservation, irrigation and other purposes.
It is, however, necessary to put in place now the system for the classifications in respect of abstraction for human consumption so that the level of treatment required for different qualities of water entering the supply system may be determined. That is so that we can put in place a regulatory framework for the new water supply companies and can give effect to the EC surface water abstraction directive. The regulations incorporate the mandatory EC values. Water authorities have already classified the waters from which thy abstract on this basis, but monitoring for compliance with the classifications will in future be a matter for the NRA.
The relevant lakes and ponds order is required simply to ensure that pollution controls apply to all waters from which water is abstracted for supply purposes. The hon. Member for Dewsbury has the answer to her question. Without that, we could not guarantee that all abstracted waters were properly classified and regulated.
A final measure concerned with the control of pollution deals with the discharge of trade effluent to sewers. Where these contain dangerous substances, they will be subject to authorisation by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Allen McKay: The Minister will recall that in Committee I asked about the pollution of rivers from old mine workings and referred to the fact that the Act would remove British Coal's responsibility in respect of polluting rivers. When we

produced evidence of the problem and asked for certain assurances, Ministers told us that they would consider the matter and give assurances, before the Bill became an Act, that grants to local authorities would, or could, be made to overcome the problem. Are we to get that assurance before this legislation leaves this place?

Mr. Howard: I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that he would consider the nature of the grants available and draw them to the hon. Gentleman's attention. We shall ensure that that is done, if it has not already been done. My inquiries suggest that the water authorities are concerned about the problem; they are aware of it and are considering ways in which they can contribute to dealing with it.
An important element of the environmental package within the Water Act is the code of practice on conservation, access and recreation. I do not intend to say much about the code itself, which we debated at length in Committee. Its scope, its detail, and the fact that in our view it embodies the very best available guidance on these matters speak for themselves, but I ask the House to note three points.
First, the code was laid before Parliament within an hour of the signalling of Royal Assent to the Bill. That is a measure of our determination to take the code seriously and to put its provisions into effect at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Mullin: Does the Minister agree that the real measure of the Government's determination will he whether the code of practice is enforceable?

Mr. Howard: Of course the code of practice will be enforceable, and of course it will be taken into account when decisions are made about the extent to which the undertakings are carrying out their statutory duties, which are specified in some detail in the Act. Has the hon. Gentleman already forgotten the many hours that we spent in Committee debating these measures? He knows perfectly well that the code is enforceable. That is why it is the subject of the regulations. That is why it is given statutory force.
The Opposition continue to claim that the code will have little effect. When we put the draft before them in Committee, they claimed that the original draft would be diluted and weakened. In fact, it is fuller and stronger. We took the consultation process very seriously. We have taken on board many of the points that were made during the consultation exercise and the draft, which was commended by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe during our deliberations in Committee, is now even better than it was when it attracted his complimentary attention.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I shall deal with this matter later in the debate. I think it fair to say, however, that the code before us now is not, in essence, the same as the draft code, which, while I felt it was good in principle, had many weaknessess in practice.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the code is not the same as the draft code. It is better than the draft code, it is stronger than the draft code, and it is more complete than the draft code was. It has been welcomed by the environmental organisations, which we consulted in detail on it. I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman, therefore, that the agreement between us


about the excellence of this code is so far undisturbed—even after his recent intervention. Of course, our agreement may not survive his speech later in the debate. No doubt he has been got at by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and I have a nasty suspicion that we shall hear as churlish a speech from him as we heard from her. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will prove me wrong.
I do not propose to say more than a few words about the other measures before the House.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: If one accepts for one moment that the Minister is right and that the code is stronger than the original draft, could that not be because, despite what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, he recognises what Opposition Members and the associations of conservation groups outside the House know—that many aspects of the code are not worth the paper on which they are written because its terms are not enforceable? It is easy for the Minister to strengthen the code given that he knows that it is not important.

Mr. Howard: That is a most extraordinary statement. The House is debating regulations that will have statutory force. They will be debated in another place early next week and they will be part of the law of the land. The Secretary of State, on whom substantial duties are placed by the Water Act, will be obliged to take into account the provisions of the code in carrying out his duties. If he does not take into account the provisions of the code sufficiently, he will be subject to judicial review by the independent courts. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) must be aware of that. How can he possibly suggest that the code will not have any force? Of course it will have force, and it will act as a further powerful reinforcement of our determination to ensure that the legislation gives us the highest possible standards for our water environment.
The regulations are a necessary development of the framework for regulating the privatised water industry in the Water Act 1989 recently approved by Parliament. They are an important part of our policy to privatise the water industry as the quickest and most cost-effective way in which to ensure that we all benefit from even higher water standards. I am sure that their provisions will be welcomed by those concerned to achieve better standards in industry and, in particular, better environmental standards. I invite the House to reject the prayers of the Opposition.

Mr. Eric Martlew: It feels like it has been a long day already so I will not delay the House for too long.
I shall vote against the regulations because of the discretionary powers that they give to the Secretary of State. Obviously we do not trust him, and after the debate on the poll tax his own Back Benchers do not trust him. When will the Conservative party realise that it is no good to Euro-bash any more? It tried that during the European elections and it was defeated. It is sad, and it brings no honour to the House, that a European Commissioner must protect our people because their Government have failed to do so. Conservative Back Benchers seem to take pleasure from criticising the Commissioner because he is not British, but that gentleman is doing a service to this country by ensuring that our water standards come up to a reasonable level.
In a debate earlier this month we learnt that 10·8 million people in England and Wales are drinking water

that is not of a standard recommended by the EEC. The Government have been in power for 10 years, but after that time their record on water purity means that 20 per cent. of the population is drinking sub-standard water. Things will get worse rather than better.
Currently, because of privatisation, the Government are forcing water authorities to relax standards regarding the sewage that goes into our rivers and seas. In certain areas—my constituency is one of them—relaxation of standards at sewage works means that effluent will go into the river before water is drawn off to become drinking water for my constituents. Such is the policy advanced by the Government and it is little wonder that we are wary of anything that the Minister proposes.
The Minister said that information about standards would be made clear to the public. I have had an example of the simple approach that has been adopted by North West Water. As the Member of Parliament for Carlisle I properly asked that water authority whether it could supply me with the details of the sewage works in Carlisle for the last year. I was sent 10 pages of computer read-out. No explanation was given; instead, the pages detail such things as sussols, bods and Mg/Ls. The public will not know what they mean and it is clear that that water authority has no idea what the public wants to know. Fortunately, earlier in my life, I worked in a laboratory and therefore I could understand the information. That document shows that North West Water has been acting illegally in my constituency. It is clear that 8 per cent. of the effluent going into the River Eden, one of the finest salmon rivers in Britain, is above the acceptable standard.
What have the Government done about such things? The answer was given in a document published by the Friends of the Earth, which states:
Your water authority has been discharging sub-standard sewage effluent. That's illegal. Selling off water companies that break the law is not easy … so the Government's solution is to relax the standards for over 1,000 sewage treatment works. That's legalised pollution".
We shall vote against the regulations because we do not trust the Secretary of State. Alarm has been created in my constituency and I am sure that the Secretary of State has received many letters voicing that alarm. As late as Saturday I received one from the Rockcliffe parish council.

Mr. Howard: The point about regulations is that they become part of the law of the land, which must be obeyed by everyone, including any Secretary of State, whether the hon. Gentleman trusts him or not.

Mr. Martlew: Presumably the Minister believes that the 10-page document I received from North West Water abides by the law of the land. It may abide by the word of the law, but not the spirit of it.
I received a letter from Rockcliffe parish council which was odd because it is not part of my constituency and nor is it a hotbed of Socialism.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Given the hon. Gentleman's sophistry, I must tell him that my colleagues and I are rather concerned that the list that he flourished from North West Water is the pools results for the last available football Saturday. He is wrong to suggest the Government have lowered standards. For years there has been a derogation from standards, but it is untrue to say that the Government have lowered standards. The hon.


Gentleman and I spent many months debating the Water Bill in Committee and surely he accepts that one of its important features is that it will raise standards?

Mr. Martlew: I agree that standards should be raised, and nothing would please me more than if North West Water wrote to me to say that it would stop polluting the River Eden. In fact it has increased the level of pollution by 25 per cent., and it will still be within the law. I am happy to put the document in the Library if the hon. Gentleman wants to look at it, if he has time after finishing a game of squash in the morning.
Rockcliffe parish council wrote to me because sewage from my constituency is polluting its lovely village. It wrote:
The Council wishes to complain in the strongest possible terms against the proposal by the North West Water Authority to increase by 25 per cent. the amount of sewage released into the River Eden at Carlisle.
It states that current standards are not good enough and that Rockcliffe has to put up with all sorts of terrible pollution. The parish council also mentioned Rockcliffe marsh, which is on the Solway, and which is one of the finest wildlife havens in the country. The council asked me what I would do. I am asking the Minister whether he will retract the instructions given to North West Water. If he does not issue such a retraction, will he turn down any subsequent applications from North West Water?
People are extremely concerned about their drinking water, about effluent and the state of our rivers. They do not want privatisation, but the debate is not about privatisation. It is a sad day when Europe must protect the British people from their Government. I hope that we will win tonight.

Mr. Roger Knapman: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for his comprehensive and erudite explanation of the regulations, which satisfy all reasonable people, including my hon. Friends.
There are many regulations, but I shall restrict my comments to three that relate to drinking water quality, the control of pollution and access to land when owned by the water companies.
The regulations fully incorporate the requirements of the European drinking water directive into British law. In Committee it was suggested that either the regulations would not be introduced or, if they were, they would be literally watered down. The regulations, however, go well beyond the requirements of the drinking water directive. My hon. and learned Friend has said that there are 14 additional national standards. He mentioned industrial and chlorinated solvents, copper, zinc and acidity standards. Perhaps the most important of all in terms of public perception is the lead standard, which is also tighter than that allowed for in the directive. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will agree that that, coupled with tighter controls on vehicle emissions, will help to satisfy the public.
Timing is all-important and 1995 is a realistic deadline. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said, the 1993 deadline is not. He said that the amendments proposing a 1993 deadline

ignore the question of practicality. Large investment programmes cannot be carried out overnight for very practical reasons that have nothing to do with the money involved."—[Official Report, 3 July 1989: Vol. 156, c. 92.]
My brother is a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and the citizens of Wincanton and several other towns and villages up and down the country have particular reason to be grateful to him. Their effluent goes downhill and is treated in modern premises in an approved place. We are now in 1989. The companies have yet to come into being, and planning permission must be sought. Quite apart from the units having to be designed, planning permission will take some months.
The planning and building of sewage stations provides the opportunity to put modern pipes under most of the streets of each village and town in the locality, and that must be done with a minimum of disruption to the local population or the local Member of Parliament's life is not likely to be pleasant for some time.
It is no wonder that the European Environment Commissioner observed of Britain that no other country in Europe now has such a determined awareness of environmental problems. I am surprised that Opposition Members did not mention that. After all, that was printed in The Guardian, which is their bible, on 17 July 1989. I am sorry that they missed it.
The regulations lay down requirements under the Water Act in respect of sampling, analysis, treatment of water and available information to customers—all matters which were lacking under the previous Labour Government. In particular, they specify minimum frequencies for the sampling of supplies and require sampling normally to be done at the customer's tap. That is the most important point at which sampling should be undertaken.
The regulations impose requirements relating to the collection and analysis of samples and specify that the laboratories must be subject to independent quality control checks. All water supplies will have to meet several minimum treatment requirements. No new substance will be cleared for use in water treatment or for the relining of pipes unless it has been approved by the Secretary of State. That will reassure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) who, a few months ago, spent some four or five hours on that subject. The public have to be reassured that additives to water supplies can be made only under the strictest of conditions.
Comprehensive water quality information will be published regularly, enabling customers to see which supplies regularly comply with quality standards and, where they do not, what action is being taken to remedy the situation.
The second group of statutory instruments deals with pollution. They carry forward the updating and strengthening of the pollution control system in the Water Act and give immediate effect to the new system from the date of privatisation.
Again the Opposition have said that 1993, not 1995, is a responsible deadline. But what credence can their proposals have when they have yet again failed to answer questions that we have put to them time and again? Can the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) explain why the Labour Government took no action to implement part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 which deals with river pollution? We await the answer to that. Why did the previous Labour Government


prevent members of the public from initiating prosecutions of river polluters—a subject on which we heard so much in the Committee which considered the Water Bill?

Mr. Pike: Whatever the Labour Government did in the period up to 1979, is not the simple fact that the Labour Government were in office for four years while this Government have been in office for 10 years? The important point is what the Government have done in those 10 years.

Mr. Knapman: But on what basis can the Opposition say that the 1995 deadline is too late and that it should be 1993? The investment that is necessary can come about only through our proposals. It will never be achieved through the Treasury under a Labour or a Conservative Government.

Mr. Raffan: If the Conservative Government did what the Labour Government did when they were in power and cut expenditure on river infrastructure by 50 per cent. there would be an outburst of horror. The Government have increased expenditure, yet the Opposition still dare to attack us. Of course we shall remind them of their record because it is so deplorable and disgraceful.

Mr. Knapman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend who, as always, makes his point well. Outrage comes easily to Opposition Members. As the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) knows, Opposition Members do not like to be reminded of previous Labour Governments' records.
Opposition Members know well the questions that I have to ask, because we have asked them so many times. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) has asked them on occasions. He might care to take over for a moment or two. How did the previous Labour Government discharge their responsibilities for monitoring pollution by sewage treatment works when it kept no records of the adequacy of their performance? Will the Opposition explain why the previous Labour Government kept details of discharge consent applications secret from the public and refuse to let them participate in the process of granting them?
We have asked those questions before and we shall ask them again. I suspect that we shall get no answer, but that does not really matter, does it? With that record, what right do the Opposition have to lecture us on whether 1995 is a reasonable date for achieving those ends? They know well that if a Labour Government came to power again—an unlikely event—they would have no more chance of achieving those standards than they did in the past.
Water authority land was also a subject of protracted exchanges in the Committee which considered the Water Bill. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth for not suggesting that the proceedings have been truncated, as he did last week. I think that I heard my hon. and learned Friend the Minister say that we have now been debating these issues for 300 hours. I am not sure whether we are just coming up to 300 hours or have just exceeded 300 hours, but that is hardly truncated.
After privatisation, water companies will be under a duty to make their waters and associated land available for recreation so far as that is consistent with their other functions. My hon. and learned Friend has leaned over backward to oblige the persistent lobbyists on that matter. However, will he confirm that the main defence against unwelcome developers on water authority land must be the

planning process? If something is wrong, the answer is not to introduce separate Acts of Parliament on every conceivable subject, but rather to ensure that any inadequate planning processes are changed.
I was born and brought up on the northern slopes of Dartmoor and I know that planning regulations in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty are particularly strict and would prevent any unsuitable development on water authority land after privatisation, as they do now. The Government's proposal to give every district authority the duty to draw up local plans will strengthen the planning system further to protect against unwelcome development. I do not know whether the proposals are perfect, but they are far better than anything that has gone before.
I and, I am sure, my hon. Friends take what is possibly the last opportunity before the recess to congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and his colleagues on the splendid way in which they have taken the legislation through the House since the middle of December.

Mr. Richard Livsey: The substance of the regulations is an increase in the powers of the Secretary of State. Those powers have the potential to undermine some of the promises made during the passage of the Bill. We must welcome the adoption of the European Community directive on drinking water. However, we must ask when the proposals in it will be implemented. During the debate on the Lords amendments the Government defeated the amendment relating to implementation by 1993. Will the Government tell us when they propose to implement the directive?
The European Commission is to be congratulated on its insistence that the Government should stop ducking and weaving over the introduction of drinking water standards. The Commission has asked the Government to tell it within two months what they will do about implementing the nitrate directive. Will the Minister tell us when he will reply to that demand from the environment Commissioner?

Mr. Raffan: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain how the Government are ducking and weaving on the European Community directive when they have incorporated it in law and have imposed 14 additional national standards. That is an extraordinary way to duck and weave. Long may Governments continue to do that when it means improving on the standards that have been put to us by Europe.

Mr. Livsey: The hon. Gentleman does not say when the directive will be implemented. We are all waiting for an answer to that. We welcome its adoption but when will it be implemented? The European Commission has posed that question and so far we have not had a clear answer.

Mr. Howard: Was the hon. Gentleman not here when I dealt with this question earlier or was he here and asleep? Did he not hear me say that we shall comply with the Commission's nitrate directive in every area bar two by 1993? In the other two we expect to comply by 1995. I gave the reasons why we could not comply with those two by 1992. Is the hon. Gentleman claiming that he and his party were concerned about this matter and about the accusations that were made about delay in implementing


the directive in the 1980s? What complaints did his party make in the 1980s about the progress being made in implementing the Community directive?

Mr. Livsey: We certainly complained on many occasions about non-implementation. In 1980, the Government acceded to the directive but they have taken nine years to bring forward legislation. Now they cannot clearly tell us when the directive will be implemented, although I gather from what the Minister said that some of it will be implemented in 1993 and the rest in 1995. That is not soon enough. The Commission wants to know why, and that is a reasonable question.

Mr. Howard: When exactly did the hon. Gentleman's party complain about the pace at which we were complying with the directive in the 1980s?

Mr. Livsey: I will not engage in debating points. The point has been made by my party a number of times and the Minister knows that. We need to move on.
Earlier in the debate the Minister tried to protect his position by talking about sample averages. I am sure that he is well aware that one definition of average temperature is a person with his head in the oven and his feet in the fridge. Water samples containing nitrate can be widely disparate. Is the Minister saying that samples with twice the acceptable level of nitrate are acceptable in terms of public health? What advice did the Minister's scientists give about the proposal that averages would be used for nitrogen content? How many scientists resigned from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution because their scientific consciences cannot come to terms with the way that the Government are proceeding on environmental protection?
Statutory instrument No. 1147 deals with the definitions of wholesome water and incorporates EC directives. Part 3 gives the Secretary of State power to relax those standards, and that power needs to be probed. Under what circumstances would he relax the standards, and in what situation would such relaxation occur? The document says:
Authorisation is necessary as an emergency measure".
It also says that authorisation depends on
the nature and structure of the ground in each area".
Some matters relating to that must be clarified, in the public interest.
Statutory instrument No. 1151 is about consents to discharges and allows the Secretary of State to determine requests for discharges of effluent above the recommended levels. We had a long debate on the Lords amendments about the 1,000 works that have broken the consent standards. In the next 12 months the Department of the Environment will allow the water plcs to go beyond the limit. Will powers about consents for discharges above the recommended levels be invoked? The statutory instrument clearly confers such a power and it would completely undermine the National Rivers Authority. It makes a mockery of the new regulatory body because it gives the Secretary of State the final say. The National Rivers Authority has, rightly, been given high billing by the Minister as an important environmental protection agency. I certainly recognise and welcome that. However, if it is not adequately resourced and is undermined by statutory instrument No. 1151, will it be an effective body?
Statutory instrument No. 1154 deals with the right of the public to inspect the register held by the Director General of Water Services. I hope that the information on the register will be available at the weekends as well as during normal working hours so that people who are engaged in their everyday business during the week can inspect the register on, for example, Saturday mornings.
I welcome statutory instrument No. 1155 which deals with pensions. In my constituency Welsh Water will soon become Welsh Water plc. The pensions of its employees obviously need to be protected.
Statutory instrument No. 1156 is important because it empowers the Secretary of State to determine applications for discharges of dangerous substances above accepted levels. It includes chemicals that are persistent in water and could include materials such as aldrin or dieldrin. Although they have been banned, sadly, some irresponsible people are still using them. The substances include atrazine and simazine which cause great difficulties in water catchment areas. I find it somewhat intriguing that the acceptable level of dangerous substances can be raised.
Statutory instrument No. 1158 deals with radioactive discharges. It treats radioactive waste as ordinary waste. This is another example of mollycoddling the nuclear industry. At present, 808 premises in England are authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 to discharge liquid radioactive waste into the public sewers. This regulation appears to weaken the conditions of the 1960 Act by allowing the Secretary of State to bring such discharges within the scope of the Water Act 1989, and to treat them as normal. Perhaps the Minister will reassure the House on that.
Statutory instrument No. 1159 deals with compensation for customers who suffer at the hands of water companies. I suggest that £5 is insufficient and that the condition which gives the companies a let-out in cases of industrial action should be withdrawn.
In general, one should be critical of these statutory instruments because of some of the powers that the Secretary of State is taking to himself. He will be able to alter some of these regulations almost at will and some of the regulations act against the environmental quality of water.
The Minister should ensure that the proceeds of the sale of the industry are reinvested, for example, in the National Rivers Authority to ensure that it can function properly as an effective environmental protection body and to ensure that it is properly funded so that it can do its job properly.
There is no doubt that the basis of this privatisation is partly the sale of land. The flotation is made more attractive by this realisation. The water plcs are busy setting up subsidiary companies to exploit this asset.
Finally, I shall point out a technical matter to the Minister. The code of practice is already out of date in some of its wording because it refers to the Nature Conservancy Council when, only last week, it was amalgamated with the Countryside Commission. I hope that the drafters of the code will take account of that significant change.

Mr. Gerrard Neale: I remind hon. Members of the serious contamination incident that took place just over a year ago in my constituency. I speak the day before publication of the independent health panel's


report on that incident. Various aspects of the regulations relate to it and I should like to make a few brief comments about them.
However, I should like first to refer to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), who spoke on behalf of the Democrats. I do not know whether my colleagues share my view, but I am unclear whether the Democrats intend to oppose or to support these regulations. Hon. Members who represent constituencies that have an historic involvement with his party—under whatever name it trades—will not be surprised at that, because there has been considerable confusion about where they stand on a range of issues.
I say to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), in the absence of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who made a speech at the start of this debate, that there will be considerable astonishment in Camelford, given the interest that Labour Members appeared to have in the Camelford incident, and given the number of references that they made to it during the debate, that they intend to vote against these regulations.
The Opposition's constant criticism has left the clear impression that their sole objective is to stop privatisation. They want to find every possible accusation to level at the Government to try to stop privatisation, and they do not want to give credit for any of the regulations.
One need only take a cursory look through the regulations to see that they offer a range of measures which will be far more helpful to the consumer than any that existed before. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) in congratulating my hon. and learned Friend the Minister on his work to ensure that these provisions were brought before the House on behalf of the consumer.
As my hon. and learned Friend said, there will be far clearer powers over environmental health cover through local authorities. Water authorities will have to provide much more information about the way in which their laboratories are run. A series of provisions in the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 are fundamentally helpful to the consumer.
Bearing in mind the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House still wish to speak, I shall concentrate on one part of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations. There will be great relief and pleasure because of regulation 30, particularly because of subsections (5) and (6), which, brief as they are, should be repeated. They provide:
(5) A water undertaker shall notify a local authority and a district health authority as soon as may be after the occurrence of any event which, by reason of its effect or likely effect on the water supplied by it, gives rise or is likely to give rise to a significant risk to the health of persons residing in the authority's area.
(6) An authority who have received a notification under paragraph (5) may require the water undertaker to provide them with such information relating to the event and its consequences as they may reasonably require.
I have to tell my hon. and learned Friend, who has been exceedingly helpful throughout the Camelford incident and its aftermath, that it is astounding that, in this day and age, the House finds it necessary to include that provision in regulations. I do not deny that it is now essential that it should. At Camelford, 20 tonnes of aluminium sulphide were dumped into the drinking water and the water supply of 20,000 people was affected. Who would have imagined

that the water authority would decide not to tell the public health authority and the environmental health authority the truth for some weeks?
My hon. and learned Friend will recall—he saw me then—that at the time I said that one of the most astounding features was that there was no statutory requirement on water authorities to inform the health authority and the environmental health officers. He said then that the Government would give the most serious consideration to this. I can only thank him for including these provisions in the regulations.
Given the criticism of these regulations, what my hon. and learned Friend said at the Dispatch Box is worthy of note. He is aiming for far greater honesty with the consumer. This is the whole purpose of the regulations. He does not want—no sensible person would—any of the information to be doctored. Any information obtained by consumers must represent a direct copy of what has been produced in accordance with the sampling processes under these regulations.
By providing that information and being honest with the public, we shall save ourselves from what has happened in north Cornwall over the past 12 months as a result of the deceit of the water authority, which did not release the facts about what had caused the incident. That deceit infected every honourable statement made subsequently by any organisation. No matter what the independent health panel says tomorrow—it is my sincere hope that it will have discovered that there is no permanent health damage, which has been the hope of all of us since the incident—and no matter the lengths to which it has gone to analyse what happened, great doubt was instilled in people's minds as a result of the water authority's inability to tell the truth.
Among the many welcome regulations, this one is vital in ensuring that should such an incident recur, through accident or whatever cause, the water authority concerned will make what has happened known to the environmental health office and the health authority. It should also make available every possible source of information that either of those two authorities needs to protect the health of the people in its area.
We have heard a great deal of criticism about the Government's desire to privatise the water industry If I had any doubts about this before the Camelford incident, I have not the slightest doubt now. That incident was caused by a public utility, a state-controlled body, which manifested the most shocking quality of management. It was able to exercise a monopoly not only over the supply but over the information processes, the responsibility for pollution and so on.
The Government's wisdom is shown in these regulations and in the Water Act itself. It is vital that we separate those processes and give the state, through the Secretary of State, clear-cut powers of control and of monitoring, through the drinking water inspectorate. The Camelford incident showed how welcome this move is. That should be separate from the supply of water, which must be carried out under stringent regulations laid down in the Act, in these statutory instruments and no doubt in subsequent measures.

Mr. Mullin: Who does the hon. Gentleman think will be in charge of the South-West water authority, about which he used the word "deceit", after privatisation? Will the same Mr. Keith Court be responsible, on higher pay?

Mr. Neale: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that that decision is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He will also know, if he has studied the matter carefully, that at the time of the incident my view was that the chairman should have resigned. Everything that has happened since the incident has vindicated that view. I said then, and I still believe, that he could not possibly have known what was going on when it happened, but he did know shortly afterwards and he chose not to inform the public. Subsequently, to his credit, he apologised for not doing so.
For that reason, if for no other, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister deserves credit for making certain through these regulations that never again will it be possible for a water undertaking, whether inadvertently or negligently, to cause such an incident and then to avoid telling the health authority and the environmental health organisation what happened, and giving them all the information that they require. That offers far better protection than do many of the other elements in these regulations. My hon. and learned Friend will have the whole-hearted support of Conservative Members, and I congratulate him on introducing the regulations.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I am honoured that the Minister thinks that any endorsement that I have given to the code of practice in the conservation, access and leisure regulation recommends it for public consumption. If the Minister accepts some of what I shall say, I shall be happy to give my whole-hearted endorsement to the code of practice. He can even stamp on the bottom, "As recommended by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe" if he deals with these points.
The main thrust of the measures in the code of practice is fine. They have been well thought out and well written, because they were recommended by the Nature Conservancy Council. That is a Government organisation for which I have nothing but the utmost respect. Therefore, it is a tragedy that the organisation in which the Minister was indirectly lavishing praise for drawing up this document is to be reorganised and broken up. One cannot have a great deal of confidence in a Government who treat one of their most effective bodies in this way.
As it is likely that the Secretary of State will no longer be in his position soon, I hope that his successor will think carefully about the way that the NCC has been treated. If the Government's commitment to conservation is to have any credibility, they need bodies such as the NCC, with its expertise, commitment and experience, to put a gloss on any Government measure dealing with conservation.
Let me deal with the reasons why I think that the regulation on the code of practice should be voted against unless it is changed. First, we see a great weakness in the enforcement of the code. Section 10(2) of the Act states:
A contravention of a code of practice as for the time being approved under this section shall not of itself constitute a contravention of any requirement imposed by section 8 or 9 above or give rise to any criminal or civil liability, but the Secretary of State and the Minister shall each be under a duty to take into account whether there has been or is likely to be any such contravention in determining when and how he should exercise his powers by virtue of this Act.
What steps would the Minister take in enforcing the regulation if it were found that a supplier was breaking it? The Minister would find that he had a bit of a problem. That is one of our main objections to the privatisation of

water. Would the Minister take away the licence of the water plc? There would be nobody else or nothing else to replace the plc. Exactly what measures, hold, control or sanctions does the Minister have over the water plcs and how will he use them?
The Minister said that the code of practice is not the same as the measure that we were discussing and he argued that it has been strengthened. It is true that during the Bill's consideration in another place the Government accepted some sensible changes on the lines of amendments that we tabled in Committee. Everyone would have been saved a great deal of time and trouble if the Government had accepted amendments then instead of waiting until the Bill was considered in another place. I welcome the changes that have been made to the Bill, strengthening the code of practice, but parts of it have been changed for the worse and there are some serious weaknesses.
The priority given to nature conservation seems to have been lowered by the priority that has been given to leisure interests. I am not saying that nature conservation should always be put in the way of leisure interests and that there should be some special consideration that is not already present, but I think that the leisure organisations and groups would recognise that one of the great money-spinning potentials of privatising water is the commercial development of leisure facilities at reservoirs and on land that the companies own.
When the code of practice was in draft form, it suggested that if there were a conflict between leisure interests and conservation interests, conservation interests would be given priority. That is no longer clear in the new code of practice. There is a concern that when there is a conflict of interest the commercial leisure interest will succeed over the conservation interests. That is a real threat. We discussed in Committee examples which were set out in a journal entitled "Liquid Assets", which was published by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society for Nature Conservation. The journal demonstrated that there are conflicts already at some of our major reservoirs.

Mr. Pike: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the Ramblers Association's concern that North West Water is considering developing a theme park at Rivington Pike which will bring the commercial interests very much to the fore.

Mr. Morley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing that example. It shows that there is already a conflict between leisure and recreation interests, the commercial motive behind them, and conservation interests. Another example is Rutland water, where there has been a conflict involving the extension of fishing licences in various parts of the reservoir and the need to keep parts of the reservoir available for wintering wild fowl. There will be other conflicts. There is a clear conflict between the leisure use of power boats for water skiing, for example, and the interests of wildlife. There are conflicts about the siting of marinas and timeshare developments arid wetland habitats. The conflicts are numerous.
When there is a conflict, who will decide what come first—conservation interests or leisure interests? How clearly will attitudes towards zoning various water board lands and reservoirs for various interests and activities be taken into account? Once the water authorities have been


privatised, what hold will the Minister have over them if they break the existing agreements—many of them are voluntary—with the various conservation groups in the management of their areas and the demands of their shareholders to maximise their revenue by developing commercial leisure interests? That is the major weakness in the code of practice and it is one which needs to be addressed. Unless the Minister can convince me that there are safeguards, I believe that we should reject the measure.
There are one or two smaller issues. We discussed the emergency operation procedure in Committee. The draft code of practice made it clear that when emergency procedures were being carried out by water authorities, the NCC would be consulted. I know that there are procedures for this when sites of special scientific interest are involved, but there are sensitive areas that do not have that status. There needs to be some protection for them so that the NCC can use its experience and expertise to advise water plcs on how to carry out repairs when there is an emergency. I have in mind drainage and the building of flood banks. We must ensure that there is the minimum amount of damage to sensitive areas.
In the draft document, plans were set out for annual consultation with conservation bodies. There is still provision for such consultation in the code, but it is no longer on an annual basis. I wonder why that alteration has been made.
The main conservation bodies are well known to the Government and they consult them, but in certain areas, on water board land, there are issues that require the attention of specialists. There is a need to involve various organisations that have a specialist interest, whether in orchids, moths or butterflies. I am not sure that in certain circumstances the consultation of specialists will take place and that we shall have the benefit of their advice.
There seems to be nothing in the code of practice that will make the water plcs take into account the effect of discharges on flora and fauna. Great damage can be caused in terms of the ecology of water courses if the nutrient enrichment of certain areas goes over certain levels. There are EC directives that cover the pollution of rivers and take into account wildlife. I suspect that the Government are in breach of some of the directives because they have given discharge consents to various sewage works without taking into account the effect that that will have on wildlife. The Government may find themselves in court on more than one issue if they do not take the effect of discharges into account.
I have raised some of the main issues that involve the code of practice, conservation and recreation. There are others that I know my hon. Friends will cover, especially the protection of access for ramblers. I do not believe that the code goes far enough in that direction. When it comes to nature conservation—I return to my original point—the code is fine in theory. It has taken into account many of the issues that I wanted to be considered, but I am not convinced that it can be applied successfully to ensure that water plcs take its provisions into account. With the conflict that will inevitably come between leisure and recreational use and conservation, I believe that there is a serious weakness.

Mr. Edward Leigh: If we did not enjoy politics, most of us would not be here. However, certain issues are so important that politics should take a back seat, and one of those is public health and safety. That was very much on my mind during the quite disgraceful speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). I am sorry that she has not remained in the Chamber to listen to the debate because I wanted to tell her about what is happening in Lincolnshire over the issue of nitrates. Lincolnshire is in the east midlands, an area of traditional arable farming. There is considerable concern not just among the general public but among the farming community about the use of nitrates. The debate rages.
We are told that there is no hard evidence that nitrates are injurious to health—yet the Government are taking the issue seriously and, I have no doubt, will act. It may be necessary for denitrification plants to be set up in certain areas, such as my constituency. We are told that the technology is not yet proven. If the Labour party were to have its way—and on this issue I can assume only that it is playing politics—and we accepted its ludicrous suggestions, denitrification plants would be set up that might prove more dangerous than the possible dangers of the current position.
These are highly technical matters. I shall not debate tonight whether it was wise for Britain or other nations to sign the directive. I have my doubts about the wisdom of the Commission becoming involved in the detail of drinking water policy. My view is that it is par excellence—to use a French expression—a region where national Governments should take precedence over the Commission. Nevertheless, the directive was signed. The Government are arguing a fair case—that they signed the directive, intend fully to carry it out, but that there are certain difficulties in doing so, not least practical difficulties such as planning. It has nothing to do with money; in some cases it may be impossible to carry out the directive in time.
I can only assume that the hon. Member for Dewsbury was, once again, playing politics and was not really concerned with public safety when she suggested that we could implement the directive by 1993. I cannot believe that she was serious. As I understand it—of course, I may be wrong—we are actually going further than the original proposals. We are tightening procedures, but we are not carping or playing politics; we are simply trying to do our best for the British people. The Government should be congratulated on that. We are talking about sampling, treatment and controls that we have not previously had. We have never had a drinking water inspectorate.
During our last short debate on these matters my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) spoke at length on access to Barn Elm reservoir, a matter which greatly concerns him. I spent about 20 years of my life living only a few yards from that reservoir, so I know what access to it has been like over the years that it has been controlled by a nationalised industry. Quite simply, there has been no access; there has been no recreation. One of the advantages of bringing this sort of legislation before Parliament is that the scrutiny will ensure that access to reservoirs and land owned by water authorities will be better for recreational and conservation interests than it has ever been before—[Interruption.] The


hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) may laugh, but he must recognise what has happened over many years with land owned by water authorities.

Mr. Morley: I was mildly amused because I know that already fencing is being erected on land in the Yorkshire water authority area that has traditionally been walked over. That is being done in advance of this legislation. The land is being put into a wholly owned holding company ready for the Yorkshire water authority to cash in on privatisation—and it certainly will not be for conservation or leisure.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is always ready to produce anecdotal evidence, but he is not prepared to study the provisions in the legislation. For the first time, statutory requirements are laid down. The hon. Gentleman is not prepared to study the code of practice——

Mr. Morley: I am.

Mr. Leigh: I think not. All that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to do is to produce anecdotal evidence rather than deal with what is in the legislation.
I wish briefly to deal with the K factor. I have often argued the case with my constituents—and I think that I have convinced them—that we will achieve the best of both worlds because although we will have private water companies that will attract private investment, they will not be wholly independent. They can only set a price laid down by the indpendent director of water services. I know that there must be a balance with K, but I have been impressed with the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) that we should place more emphasis on ploughing back profits into conservation measures and improving quality.
The Government should explain—and they should begin now—that, unfortunately, charges will have to rise. There is no doubt about that. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I say that they have to rise because there has been gross under-investment in the water industry for many years. I shall not discuss what happened under the last Labour Government—we have had all those arguments—but we should now admit to the British people that we cannot escape an increase in charges. The charges are not related to the profit motive that Opposition Members claim to be the point of the legislation; they relate to improving quality and to ensuring that investment is ploughed back for the benefit of consumers. There will be a balance between the consumers and those who invest in the industry.
In the long term there will be a strong code of practice, improved access and recreation. For the first time, that code will set down the most rigid standards of wholesomeness and there will be a K factor that will ensure decent investment in the industry to the benefit of all. I should have thought that any objective observer, looking at the issue in that way, would conclude that we have it about right.

Mr. David Hinehliffe: The House is debating 15 sets of regulations concerned with various aspects of the new water industry, but I shall comment only on pollution. I question whether there is any meaning

or relevance in regulations to control pollution when we are all aware that the Government effectively announced an amnesty on prosecutions for pollution in the run-in to privatisation.
I make no excuses for being somewhat parochial in my view of pollution. Water is a major political issue and a matter of deep concern for Yorkshire people because of the river pollution problems that Yorkshire has faced for a number of years. Earlier, the Minister accused Opposition Members of making wild statements and allegations. Recent press reports on the state of the Humber estuary cannot be said to be wild statements or allegations because they were backed by facts. It appears that the Humber is now polluting the North sea and many other rivers on the east coast. That worries not only my constituents but those of my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley).
As to the regulations relating to sampling, the recent National Rivers Authority working group report made the point that present analysis of the Humber estuary is of little value for the purposes of water quality management because some of the pollutants discharged into the Humber have not even been identified. Therefore, I question the relevance of the regulations to the problems of the Humber estuary. I question whether they give the NRA sufficient powers to prosecute those responsible for the Humber's major pollution problems.
Greenpeace estimates that discharges from no fewer than 1,500 pipelines are polluting the Humber, with complete immunity for those responsible. Those discharges come from sewage works owned by Yorkshire Water itself, metal smelting plants, oil refineries and chemical complexes. Numerous different types of discharges are all contributing to major pollution of the North sea, which is something that should deeply concern and worry us all. We should see what we can do to improve upon that appalling situation.
The Humber is a receptacle for 300 miles or more of class 3 rivers in Yorkshire Water's area and for 90 miles of class 4 rivers. They are the most appalling and dead rivers in the country. They emanate from south Yorkshire and were debated in Committee.
The end of the line has been reached for the policies of Yorkshire Water, whose incredible complacency towards pollution has led to the problems now facing the Humber estuary. In the run-up to privatisation, the policy of Yorkshire rivers has markedly deteriorated. The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), who earlier intervened but left the Chamber a considerable time ago, made the pont that the Government are not themselves responsible for the lower quality of river water. If, after 10 years in authority, the Government cannot be said to be responsible, who can?
I cite the example of Driffield canal, which is in a predominantly urban area and not one having many industries. In the course of a decade, that canal has been transformed from a pleasant waterway with an abundance of fish and wildlife to slow-moving, black sludge. The prime polluter of that canal is Yorkshire Water, which has allowed sewage consent levels to rise five times higher because its nearby sewerage works could not, some considerable time ago, meet the required consents. That led directly to the deterioration of that once beautiful waterway to what is now slow-moving, black sludge.
Few people in Yorkshire are celebrating the recent announcement by Yorkshire Water of a 27·5 per cent.


increase in its profits to £56·5 million. Record profits were also recorded for the previous year. In the run-up to privatisation, Yorkshire Water is fattening up its organisation to attract investors. Imagine what could have been done with that £56·5 million in dealing with the problems of the Humber estuary, Driffield canal and Yorkshire's class 3 and class 4 rivers, as well as with the sewage works owned by Yorkshire Water. A good deal could have been done with it. The move towards privatisation has allowed pollution to continue.
What could have been done with the £700,000 that Yorkshire water has spent in the past financial year on paying advisers on privatisation? What could have been done with the money put towards the £20 million spent on the Water Authority Association's propaganda campaign—especially the £1·1 million spent in Yorkshire on regional advertising propaganda, a sum dragged out of Gordon Jones in recent days?
When we consider that a blind eye has been turned to the real cause of pollution in areas such as mine, the regulations become largely meaningless. I endorse the comments of my hon. Friends and others: this is a worrying situation, and news of a pollution amnesty gives me no great confidence that the regulations will improve it.

Mr. James Hill: Let me add my voice to the congratulations that have been conferred on the Department and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister on the able way in which a difficult Bill has been handled—and, moreover, on preventing the House from having to sit into the first week of August. I think that we are all very grateful for that.
I wish to speak only because I do not believe that the regulations cover a serious problem in the Southampton area. Part of the problem has been caused by a Greenpeace ship, the Moby Dick, which came up the Solent. The crew tied a wire around the propeller of the sludge vessel that distributes sewage—after some sort of treatment—into the Solent, and the Southern water authority warned that if it was not removed within three days raw sewage would go into the Solent.
Unfortunately, a different Department issues the licence. I think that there should be a gathering of great minds. The Ministry of Agriculture, which issues the licence for the dumping of sludge in an area just five miles south of the Isle of Wight, has been doing so for many years, and those who have monitored the site—certainly the Ministry's inspectors—have said that such dumping causes no harm either to the environment or to fish stocks. That may well be so, but will the Commission take it on board for another 20 years?
I believe that an industrial process is the answer. My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, ltchen (Mr. Chope), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, contain four depots. The reservoirs fill up quickly with raw sewage which, on being treated, takes on the consistency of a thick paste. It is then taken to an area south of the Isle of Wight and discharged. Quite often, human nature being what it is, the ship leaves a trail of sludge leading to the dumping area. I have already asked the Minister of Agriculture to ensure that the actions of the crew, the dumping process and the licences are well monitored.
When I met the chairman and directors of the Southern water authority on one of the sites in the sludge farm in Marchwood, I feared that they were in no way prepared to spend many millions of pounds on industrial treatment. Apparently a firm in the midlands—BVH—turns the sludge into oil or graphite which can in turn be turned into burning bricks for generating plants.
We must think again about the treatment of sewage. We can no longer, because of our Community connections, continue with the old methods of disposing of raw sewage, or partly treated sewage. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will bear that point in mind. However, with the privatisation of 10 water authorities, he is faced with a difficult problem, and I wish him the best of luck.

Mr. Howard: With permission, Mr. Speaker, may I say that, rather against the odds, we have had an interesting debate? I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and his brother. My hon. Friend made some powerful points. We have yet to get any answers to them from the Opposition. He put his points in the form of questions that have yet to be answered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) spoke, on the basis of his particular constituency experience, of the difficulties that can arise. At all times, he has been most assiduous and motivated by the determination to ensure that what happened in his constituency about a year ago should not, if at all possible, happen again but that, if it ever happened again, proper procedures should be in place to deal with some of the consequences. We have listened carefully to the points that he has put to us from time to time and we have been able to incorporate some of his suggestions in the regulations. I am glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the determination with which he has pursued those questions, not only on behalf of his constituents but also in the wider interests of all our constituents so as to ensure that incidents of that kind do not recur.
In a characteristically robust contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) made some important points about public health and safety. They, too, have not been answered by the Opposition. We look forward with great interest to the speech which is to be made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I cannot say that the hon. Gentleman's track record in answering questions is such as to inspire confidence that we shall receive any convincing answers during his speech, but we always live in hope. He may be able to answer the legitimate questions that have been put to him during the debate about the Opposition's attitude. It is their attitude that has posed so many questions during the debate and they have been signally unprepared to answer them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) asked a number of questions which he recognised were the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister would have had those answers if I had been given a chance to speak.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of the Committee, but he raised a long point of order at the beginning of our proceedings.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend the Member for Test appreciates that those are questions that should be put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I know that his questions will be considered seriously by my right hon. Friend, for I shall draw them to his attention.
Answers to questions have been requested.

Mr. Cryer: Yes, that is right.

Mr. Howard: I am very happy to answer them, as I did during my earlier speech. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) asked a large number of questions and I shall deal with the points that he raised. He asked about the medical advice that we have received about the nitrates standard on the basis of average samples which we originally understood to be the basis on which compliance with the European Community directive was to be assessed. I am happy to respond to that point. Our advice from the chief medical officer was that 50 mgl was the appropriate standard to be interpreted as an average, provided the concentration in any sample did not exceed 100 mgl. We acted on that advice and were convinced that it was sensible and reasonable to approach this matter on the basis that average samples were sufficient.
The hon. Gentleman made an assertion about the effect of these regulations on the radioactive waste regulations and the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. I am happy to tell him that these regulations do not affect the application of the 1960 Act. They deal with the radioactivity of the discharge. The radioactive properties of any waste will continue to be governed by the 1960 Act.
The hon. Gentleman asked also in what circumstances the relaxations that the Secretary of State would be empowered to give under regulation 4 of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations might be granted. Those powers directly reflect those that are contained in the drinking water directive, which grants powers to make relaxations when there is a mechanical breakdown, when there are exceptional meteorological conditions or in circumstances arising from the nature and structure of the ground. The circumstances in which those relaxations are likely to be granted mirror those that are contained in the drinking water directive.
The hon. Gentleman said that Statutory Instrument No. 1151 allowed the Secretary of State to undermine the National Rivers Authority by granting discharge consents with lax standards. He is wrong. It does nothing more than set out the procedures for appeals to the Secretary of State as provided for under schedule 12 to the Water Act 1989. The hon. Gentleman's point was based on a misapprehension.
I was surprised to see the hon. Gentleman nod his head vigorously in agreement with a point that was made by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) about the Nature Conservancy Council. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe was complaining about the recent decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the NCC. One of the important effects of my right hon. Friend's decision was to make a separate Nature Conservancy Council for Wales.

Mr. Livsey: indicated assent.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman now shows from a sedentary position that he welcomes that decision. When the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe was criticising it, he vigorously nodded in assent. The hon. Gentleman must decide what his position is. I am glad that that decision has his support. I hope that it will have the support also of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, who perhaps will tell us whether he agrees with his hon. Friend and whether he thinks that it was a good or bad idea to have a separate Nature Conservancy Council for Wales. We look forward with great interest to hearing his answer.
The conclusion to be drawn from the Labour party's stance on these statutory instruments—the only one that can reasonably be drawn—is that it does not wish to improve drinking water quality standards or our pollution control systems, that it does not support the issuing of guidance on good practice in conservation, and that it does not want customers to have the right to compensation for breach of standards. The party that boasts about its support for open government does not want to support even the moves for greater accountability in the control of pollution provisions and arrangements for access to the register of the Director General of Water Supply. Perhaps the only form of open government that the Labour party is prepared to support is leaked documents and the information contained in them.
The Opposition have made no case for the annulment of the instruments. I invite the House to join with those who welcome the Government's prompt action to complete the new environmental regime needed before vesting and to reject this utterly irresponsible attempt to obstruct and frustrate the progress they will achieve.

Mr. Alun Michael: The Government's plan to privatise water has long been recognised, in the words of a Conservative Back-Bench Member, as deservedly unpopular with members of the public of all political persuasions. During its passage, it has become increasingly complex, with a web of bureaucracy being woven to compensate for the manifest defects in the Government's plans. Today we come to the last legislative step in the process—or almost the last. I say that because, as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has exposed, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) underlined in her opening speech, these statutory instruments need to be amended now, even before they are adopted, simply so that they will make sense. It appears that the Government intend to bring in those amendments during the recess and to discuss them only after implementing the regulations and after the House returns. What a mess. Is it surprising that we should pray against this unsatisfactory set of documents?
It is ludicrous to have three hours to debate all 15 documents, given the importance that we place on trying to rescue the water industry from this mess and building the best possible protection for the public into the system. Time is short, so I can touch only briefly on some of the important issues underlying the many contributions to tonight's debate, each of which is worthy of separate scrutiny.
Let us look, for example, at Statutory Instrument No. 1151—the Control of Pollution (Consents for Discharges


etc.) (Secretary of State Functions) Regulations. Here we see the power of the Secretary of State to call in applications for consent if asked to do so. Can we trust the Secretary of State being set as an arbiter above the National Rivers Authority and able to override it? Let us consider the experience with planning powers over the past few years. The Government are increasingly using the powers of the Secretary of State to remove or override provisions that were enacted to protect the public. We cannot trust the Secretary of State and we cannot trust the Government.

Mr. Howard: Is the hon. Gentleman now suggesting that it is his party's policy to eliminate call-in powers in planning applications? If it is not his view that those call-in powers should be eliminated, why is it wrong to have comparable powers in relation to water control?

Mr. Michael: My case is that the call-in powers and the powers of appeal have been abused under this Government to a shocking extent. They have used those powers to undermine the decisions of this House.
When we turn to the statutory instruments on supply and sewerage services and customer service standards, we see the Government's innovation of the £5 fine. That sounded rather attractive when we started off. However, when one looks at it and at the application, it is, of course, nominal and surrounded by caveats. If
the complaint is frivolous or vexatious",
the fine need not be paid. That is necessary, but who decides?
The Joint Committee's findings are most telling of all. It said:
Regulation 5(2) makes water or sewerage undertakers liable in ordinary circumstances to pay £5 to a customer who has made a complaint in writing … if they do not within 10 days send him either a substantive reply or an initial reply which explains why there cannot be an immediate substantive reply and says that a substantive reply will be sent within 20 days from the receipt of the complaint".
The Committee points out that there was no provision for any payment if the promise of a substantive reply was not kept, and the Minister has not answered that point in today's debate. That is shirking. The prescribed standard requires the promise to be made, but does not require it to be implemented. That is complete nonsense. It is not a drafting error; it is a major basic defect which reflects the Government's grave concern about whether they will be able to con the City into buying what the public do not want to sell.

Mr. Cryer: That was one of a number of points made by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Officials from the Minister's Department promised several new amendments to the regulations that are to be laid, presumably when Parliament is not sitting, to correct the hastily drafted regulations that are being forced through Parliament. Parliamentary rights are being trampled on, and my hon. Friend has given an excellent example of our concerns.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting my point with such authority. It is a very serious point and the Minister completely failed to answer it during the debate.
Let us examine the Water Reorganisation (Pensions etc.) Regulations——

Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Michael: No, the Minister has had his chance.
The Joint Committee drew the special attention of both Houses to the instrument on pensions on the ground that the drafting was defective. What have we heard about that?
Let us examine the code of practice on conservation, access and recreation. Time is so short that I cannot go into the details of its defects, but I shall answer one point that the Minister made. He mentioned a separate Nature Conservancy Council for Wales. That is less important than the Opposition's proposal, which Conservative Members voted down, for a separate Rivers Authority for Wales. We demanded subsequently that meat should be put on the bones of the committee that is to advise the Secretary of State on matters affecting Wales. The Committee appears in the Act, but there is no meat on its bones; it has no real powers and it has no real authority. It is a failure of will on the part of Ministers who should represent Wales.
As I said, the code on conservation, access and recreation contains several weaknesses. If the Government were serious about protecting and promoting public access, a number of measures could have a beneficial effect. The most important of those concerns enforcement. No matter how weak or strong the code is, section 10(2) of the Water Act makes it clear that
contravention of the code … shall not … constitute a contravention of any requirement imposed by section 8 or 9 of the Act.
That means that the water undertakers will be free to ignore the code completely and to have regard only to the duties in sections 8 and 9. The provision is the only sanction available and the Minister should have said that he intended to give some reality to the code by using that sanction. Only if the Government intended to use that sanction—because the Act is otherwise so weak—would there be any sense or meaning or depth to the code.
Then we come to the control of pollution registers on which many important points have been made. The regulations specify that information on derogations has to be made available to the public. The Minister and Conservative Members have said that time is needed to introduce schemes to put right the present illegal discharges. I use that term because a derogation is a sort of probation period for the polluter, during which specified time a scheme of works is to be undertaken to end the illegality.
Last week, like other hon. Members, I examined the details of the recent rash of applications for derogations—in my case, those in Wales. The information is available in St. Mellons which, while inconvenient for most of Wales, is relatively convenient for me as it is in my constituency. Like other members of the public who have been able to make the approach, I was received courteously and my questions were answered—at least until I asked for the information about the schemes of work. I was told that the information is not kept; it is not available; the Government do not require it.
I had previously asked the Secretary of State when each scheme would be started, when it would be completed and to what standard discharges would be improved. The answer that I received to all those questions was that the Department did not know. I thought that, given the Minister's claims that the regulations improve matters, we should find something in the regulations to deal with this. But the Government do not know and they do not care. To


talk about meeting standards and then to take no interest in the method or the cost of doing the job is a failure. The Government are not demanding the appropriate records to be kept on the meeting of derogations and the schemes of work that are needed. That is a failure.
Let me deal with water supply and water quality, on which the Joint Committee's remarks are devastating. There is no doubt that in this case the regulations require elucidation. On the presence of coliforms, the Department's witnesses admitted that the drafting of the regulations was not successful. They admitted that the drafting of regulation 6(2) was "defective" and "confusing".

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Michael: The Government's regulations are defective and confusing. The accusation has not been answered by the Minister and I certainly shall not give way to hon. Members who cannot be bothered to be here for the debate when the Minister has failed in his task tonight.

Mr. Cash: rose——

Mr. Howard: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is not giving way.

Mr. Michael: Two weeks ago the Secretary of State took the word "wholesome" out of the Bill and, across the Dispatch Box, told me that that word meant nothing. It appears in the regulations. In addition, paragraph 3 of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations represents an attempt to back off from the EC's 100 per cent. criterion on water quality. Paragraph 11 states:
a water undertaker shall determine, in respect of each of its water supply zones, such number and location of sampling points as will in its opinion secure that analysis of samples obtained from those points in respect of the parameters listed in Tables A to E will, so far as is reasonably practicable, produce
the data needed. The undertakers decide, and that is the weakness in the regulations.
Paragraph 23 contains the phrase
so far as is reasonably practical the appropriate requirements shall be satisfied".
Again, the requirements will not be enforced or pressed on water authorities. Paragraph 28 suggests that it should be a defence for an undertaker to show that it took
all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence".
Who will decide? Subsection (4) says:
Proceedings for an offence … shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Director of Public Prosecutions cannot enforce the regulations; nor can a local authority; nor can consumers. What sort of regulations are these?
Tonight the Minister and his Back-Bench Members have followed the old Tory maxim, "If your case is weak shout a lot and be insulting," together with the new Thatcherite maxim, "If you are in trouble, pretend that the last 10 years did not exist." I shall make one point in response to questions asked by the Minister and others about Labour's record. From 1974 to 1979, average capital expenditure on water authorities was £1,254 million per annum. From 1979 to 1987, the Conservatives

achieved an average of only £922 million. That is not a good record. That is a cut. In each debate the Minister has tried to move the goal posts and——

It being three hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to the Order [14 July]:—

The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 310.

Division No. 309]
[9.32 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Anderson, Donald
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fisher, Mark


Armstrong, Hilary
Flannery, Martin


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Flynn, Paul


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashton, Joe
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foster, Derek


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fraser, John


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fyfe, Maria


Barron, Kevin
Galbraith, Sam


Battle, John
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Beckett, Margaret
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Beggs, Roy
George, Bruce


Beith, A. J.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bermingham, Gerald
Gordon, Mildred


Bidwell, Sydney
Gould, Bryan


Blunkett, David
Graham, Thomas


Boateng, Paul
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Boyes, Roland
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Haynes, Frank


Buckley, George J.
Heffer, Eric S.


Callaghan, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Home Robertson, John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cartwright, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Howells, Geraint


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clay, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cohen, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Coleman, Donald
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Corbett, Robin
Kennedy, Charles


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kilfedder, James


Cousins, Jim
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Crowther, Stan
Kirkwood, Archy


Cryer, Bob
Lambie, David


Cummings, John
Lamond, James


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leadbitter, Ted


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Terry


Darling, Alistair
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Livsey, Richard


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dewar, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dixon, Don
Loyden, Eddie


Dobson, Frank
McAvoy, Thomas


Doran, Frank
McFall, John


Douglas, Dick
McLeish, Henry


Duffy, A. E. P.
McNamara, Kevin


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McWilliam, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Eadie, Alexander
Marek, Dr John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fatchett, Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)






Martlew, Eric
Rowlands, Ted


Maxton, John
Ruddock, Joan


Meacher, Michael
Salmond, Alex


Michael, Alun
Sedgemore, Brian


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Short, Clare


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Sillars, Jim


Morgan, Rhodri
Skinner, Dennis


Morley, Elliot
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Mullin, Chris
Snape, Peter


Nellist, Dave
Spearing, Nigel


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Turner, Dennis


Parry, Robert
Vaz, Keith


Patchett, Terry
Wall, Pat


Pendry, Tom
Wallace, James


Pike, Peter L.
Walley, Joan


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Prescott, John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Primarolo, Dawn
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Radice, Giles
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Randall, Stuart
Wilson, Brian


Redmond, Martin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Worthington, Tony


Richardson, Jo
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)



Robinson, Geoffrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Allen Adams.


Rooker, Jeff



Ross, William (Londonderry E)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Aitken, Jonathan
Buck, Sir Antony


Alexander, Richard
Budgen, Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Burns, Simon


Allason, Rupert
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butcher, John


Amos, Alan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carttiss, Michael


Ashby, David
Cash, William


Aspinwall, Jack
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Atkins, Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Chapman, Sydney


Baldry, Tony
Chope, Christopher


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Churchill, Mr


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bendall, Vivian
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Colvin, Michael


Benyon, W.
Conway, Derek


Bevan, David Gilroy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cope, Rt Hon John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cormack, Patrick


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Couchman, James


Body, Sir Richard
Cran, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Critchley, Julian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boswell, Tim
Curry, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Day, Stephen


Bowis, John
Devlin, Tim


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dorrell, Stephen


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dover, Den


Brazier, Julian
Dunn, Bob


Bright, Graham
Dykes, Hugh


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Eggar, Tim


Browne, John (Winchester)
Emery, Sir Peter


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)





Evennett, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lang, Ian


Fallon, Michael
Latham, Michael


Favell, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lord, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Franks, Cecil
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Freeman, Roger
McCrindle, Robert


French, Douglas
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gale, Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, George
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gill, Christopher
Maclean, David


Glyn, Dr Alan
McLoughlin, Patrick


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gorst, John
Major, Rt Hon John


Gow, Ian
Malins, Humfrey


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mans, Keith


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maples, John


Gregory, Conal
Marlow, Tony


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hague, William
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Maude, Hon Francis


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hanley, Jeremy
Miller, Sir Hal


Hannam, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mitchell, Sir David


Harris, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Hawkins, Christopher
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hayes, Jerry
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hayward, Robert
Morrison, Sir Charles


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moss, Malcolm


Heddle, John
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Needham, Richard


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Neubert, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hill, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Holt, Richard
Norris, Steve


Hordern, Sir Peter
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howard, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Page, Richard


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patnick, Irvine


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Pawsey, James


Hunter, Andrew
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Irvine, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Irving, Charles
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jack, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Jackson, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Jessel, Toby
Price, Sir David


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Raffan, Keith


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rathbone, Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Redwood, John


Key, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Riddick, Graham


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knapman, Roger
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knowles, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knox, David
Rost, Peter






Rowe, Andrew
Thorne, Neil


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thornton, Malcolm


Ryder, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Sackville, Hon Tom
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Tracey, Richard


Sayeed, Jonathan
Trippier, David


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, David (Dover)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Viggers, Peter


Shelton, Sir William
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walden, George


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shersby, Michael
Waller, Gary


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watts, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wheeler, John


Steen, Anthony
Whitney, Ray


Stern, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Stevens, Lewis
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stokes, Sir John
Winterton, Nicholas


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wolfson, Mark


Sumberg, David
Wood, Timothy


Summerson, Hugo
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Tony Durant.


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Social Security Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendment: No. 1, after clause 4, insert the following new clause—Increase for child benefit—
. In section 63(2) of the Social Security Act 1986, after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
'(aa) which increases the sum specified by virtue of section 5(1) of the Child Benefit Act 1975 by a percentage not less than the percentage by which the sum prescribed for the purposes of section 21(6)(a) above in respect of a child aged less than 11 years is increased by the up-rating order; and'.

Mr. Speaker: This amendment involves privilege.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Moore): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The issue is not a new one for the House. We discussed it on 18 January on an Opposition Supply Day, on 24 April on Report and on 11 July on Report on the Finance Bill. In every case, the substance of the issue was debated and the House sustained the Government's decision by a large majority. Little new has emerged since then except for something in regard to family credit, to which I shall refer later, but the arguments have moved in favour of the Government. As succinctly as I can, because I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily, I shall explain the reasons for the decision that the Government took, to show why I shall urge the House to reject the Lords amendment.
I imagine that I shall take the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) with me when I say that I shall not spend too much of our limited time on the Lords amendment itself, because I assume that the House will agree that in many ways it is a stalking horse for the same child benefit debate, and I understand that. Essentially, as one of my noble Friends described it, they are seeking to impose a statutory duty based on the exercise of discretion. For example, if this year we follow the provisions of the Lords amendment, and for the under-11s we were able to secure an increase of 20·7 per cent., extended across the whole of the child benefit range that would result in a public expenditure cost of £675 million. In many ways, the remarks of Tony Lynes, who occasionally is drawn to the attention of the House, in the New Statesman and Society this week was interesting. He pointed out the fallacy behind the amendment, which would prevent the Government from helping the poorest.
I shall remind the House of what I have said many times, first about what child benefit was supposed to be. I am not talking about what, perfectly honourably, many hon. Members on both sides of the House would like child benefit to be or about what many people think that it should have been when it was first introduced. I am talking about what child benefit was when it was created in the 1975 statute and what Governments of both political persuasions have sought to enact since. Therefore, I shall go back to the quotation that I have given many times


from the debate on 13 May 1975 when the late Alec Jones, when discussing why he did not think it appropriate to have an annual index of the review of child benefit, said:
We do not propose that there should be anything similar to child benefit because it is a totally different kind of benefit, fulfilling a different purpose.
In the first place it is a new kind of benefit—a hybrid, which amalgamates a social security benefit with a tax allowance. In the second place, most of the people receiving it will be people at work, and the benefit will simply form a tax-free addition to their earned income. In this it is totally unlike benefits such as pensions which form the main source of income of those who receive them … It will be raised from time to time in the light of inflation and other developments. But just as neither family allowances nor child tax allowances are subject to the rigid pattern of upratings that has been evolved for social security benefits nor will their successor benefit be."—[Official Report, 13 May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 400–1.]
On a later date, the then Mrs. Castle said:
There is a difference between routine national insurance benefits and this new benefit. Indexation of the child benefit is inappropriate. National insurance benefits are major means of support when earning capacity is interrupted, but the child benefit is a tax-free supplement to families whose major source of income is earnings. Clearly maintenance benefits must be capable of moving automatically in line with changes in the cost of living. The child benefit is in a different category. … A statutory duty is placed on the Secretary of State to examine the rate in the light of the overall social and economic policies."—[Official Report, 7 July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 238.]
I shall not labour the point as I have made it many times in previous debates.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I shall not labour the point either. It is all very well quoting 1975, but that was before the House, during the Report stage of the Finance Bill 1977, accepted statutory indexation of personal tax allowances. Those speeches in 1975 would not have been made and those briefs would not have been written in the light of the change of policy agreed by the House in 1977.

Mr. Moore: I disagree with the hon. Member but——

Mr. Rooker: The Secretary of State knows that.

Mr. Moore: If the hon. Gentleman would be as courteous as he used to be and allow me to answer his point, rather than constantly interrupt me, I should be happy to do so. I was trying to illustrate the distinction that was clearly drawn between child benefit as introduced and other forms of then indexed benefit. There was a substantive debate then. I will be happy to go on, to illustrate why I think that is the case.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I hope that my right hon. Friend can reassure me and many of my colleagues. Does he agree that families with children have obviously got greater family commitments than those without children and that this should be taken account of within the tax and benefits system? All families, at whatever level of income, have got greater commitments. My right hon. Friend has said, and he has read out, that when this benefit was introduced, it was stated at the time that it should be, as a result of inflation, increased from time to time. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House that he agrees that child benefit should be increased from time to time?

Mr. Moore: I have said that the nature of the statutory duty is clear. One of the confusions that has entered the debate is that people seem to assume that child benefit is

a substitute for family credit. It is not. Child benefit, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security has said on many occasions, and precisely, is still part and parcel of the overall help that is given to families with children. That parcel includes child benefit, which is not means tested, and other forms of benefit. It is a package. I shall illustrate the character of the package and the way that the combination works.

Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for reminding us of what Labour Ministers said about child benefit. Will he also remind the House that he is quoting the same people who tried to rat on the benefit, and that had there not been a leak of child benefit papers from the Cabinet, the child benefit scheme would not now exist. Would it not be appropriate to draw on sources other than that group of people to support his case?

Mr. Moore: I recognise in many instances the role of the hon. Gentleman outside the House as well as inside it. I was doing what I thought was my duty, which was to remind the House of the background to the nature of my statutory duty, which is the duty of all Governments.
I shall move on because I wish to be relatively brief.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Moore: No. I have given way excessively—and courteously, I trust.
I shall move on from the nature of the history of child benefit and the statutory duty upon the Secretary of State to remind the House that in an earlier debate on these matters I drew attention to what child benefit had replaced. I shall take up the points that have been made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). It replaced family and child tax allowances, neither of which were expected to, or did, rise each year.
To ensure that the record is correct for the hon. Member for Birkenhead, in the article that he wrote, he took the period 1946 to 1970, but then added to that the period from 1970 to 1972, which actually changed the data. During that period, for two thirds of children in the basic category for all those under the age of 11, the real value declined. I shall send the hon. Gentleman the details because, being a serious person, he would no doubt wish to see them. The two allowances that child benefit replaced had different characteristics, but the one that they shared with child benefit was that they were not expected automatically to be indexed.
What was at the back of my statutory duty that made me take the decisions I did this year? I had to recognise the nature of the whole character of the economy, what happens to families in other parts of the social security and benefits system, as well as the overall pattern of earnings. It would be improper for me to ignore the radical reductions in taxation, under which 80 per cent. of families with children benefit. It would be improper for me to ignore the fact that for the year in question when I made my judgment, when I considered whether to increase child benefit by 45p, families on typical male average earnings had had a £20 per week gain in income after tax during the previous year. I have to put all those into the balance in addition to the other improvements in living standards.
The Opposition and some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have argued their case from different angles. I respect many of their arguments. I pick out the eloquent


speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) during Report on the Finance Bill recently. He put his points extremely well and very quietly, as he always does. Hon. Members argue about horizontal equity, but I think that they tend to be over-conscious of—I dare not say obsessed with—child benefit to the exclusion of the overall pattern of the Government's help and support for families with children.
I am always grateful to the hon. Member for Birkenhead; I found his piece in The Guardian today fascinating. For those who do not have The Guardian as their daily read, I shall quote what he said:
The Opposition and the poverty lobby will need to get their facts together.
I shall not remind the House what the hon. Gentleman said about the Leader of the Opposition, although it was no doubt flattering—
Gesture politics here is the litany so often heard that child benefit is the only way of increasing family income.
It is in that context that it is essential that the Opposition and my right hon. and hon. Friends understand the pattern of improvement over the last decade—rightly in my judgment—in help for families with children. We have secured a massive increase in the overall pattern of support—the horizontal equity mentioned by my hon. Friends—of about 27·3 per cent. As a society, we are spending £9 billion-plus in that area.
I do not think that my hon. Friends need to be reminded of this, but the Opposition do. If they are obsessed with just one part of support for families with children——

Mr. Frank Field: I am not.

Mr. Moore: I do not mean the hon. Gentleman, I mean the Opposition generally. We should recall their appalling record when they were last in office. I specifically remind them about the relative position of child tax and of family allowances and child benefit, the process of which was changed during their time in office.
The last time that I stood at this Dispatch Box, I reminded the House that their real value for young children has been higher throughout the term of this Government's period in office that at any time during the last Labour Administration, except when Labour uprated benefits in its last month in office. I shall place the figures on the record. They reveal that spending in real terms on family allowance and child tax allowance in 1974–75 totalled £5,758 million. In 1978–79, the figure fell in real terms by 14 per cent. to £4,875 million, which is not a record of which Labour can be proud.

10 pm

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: My right hon. Friend says that child benefit should not be looked upon as the only means of helping those with children and of achieving horizontal equity. What help other than child benefit is given to people with children who have medium or high levels of income?

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Lords amendments to the Social Security Bill and the Transport (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — Social Security Bill

Lords amendments again considered.

Mr. Moore: I commented that it was a judicious mix, and I go on to remind my hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Members of the way that we manage that mix. As my hon. Friend rightly says, it is a combination of child benefit. Sometimes, the media and certain of my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as Opposition Members, behave as though child benefit is under threat. We are looking at a combination of benefits that matches the attempt to target additional help at poorer families with the universal benefit that is child benefit. Sometimes, it seems as though the only topic of debate is child benefit, but that is only part of the mixture.

Mr. Timothy Raison: My right hon. Friend referred, rightly, to Labour's appalling record when in government. One of the most powerful arguments for the automatic uprating of child benefits is that if Labour were ever returned to power, it would be unable to perpetuate its appalling record.

Mr. Moore: My right hon. Friend has made that point before, and it is reasonable that he should make it again.
We are trying to help families with children in a balanced and sensible way against the backcloth of a massive increase in real terms in 10 years. We are combining targeted help with help on a universal basis. My right hon. and hon. Friends should remember more than some of them do that we are dealing with an entirely new structure of benefit support for families with children. The structure of income support and family credit means that there is no immediate gain to such families from a simple increase in child benefit. However, families with children under 11 have, under family credit, enjoyed a real improvement this year of 20·7 per cent.
As to the debate on targeting, I find it extraordinary that the Opposition act as though means-tested benefits, as opposed to universal benefits, are somehow a new invention and that an attempt to help people who are poorer than others is a new feature of Government policy. Anyone with knowledge of the subject will know that it has been a feature of our social security system for many years. The question is always how effective one can make such benefits. Most targeted benefits succeed very well, with £9 out of £10 of them reaching the people for whom they are intended. Most of the analysis that we have undertaken reveals that targeted benefits are not seen as demeaning by those who receive them. Certainly they are not seen as demeaning by lone-parent families, where the take-up of benefits is a successful 97 per cent.-plus.
I shall concentrate briefly on family credit. After two years, we have grown accustomed to the hon. Member for Livingston delighting us all, in advance of any debate on the Floor of the House, with the leaked proceedings of a conference or by distributing a piece of paper—if I may so describe the latest Walworth road press release, though I understand that that particular document was released at 00·01 hours.
That illustrates the essential dilemma faced by the hon. Member for Livingston. Looking at this piece of paper, it is clear that the first thing that we must do is try to work out what precisely are the Opposition's policies. In articles written outside the House, the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he does not consider family credit a good

benefit; as a good Socialist, he would prefer a minimum income—I think that that was the phrase that he used in an interview about poverty last year.
In public and in the House, however, the hon. Gentleman argues that, if family credit is to be provided, it should be taken up. I would have hoped, therefore—I am being as courteous and fair as I can—that he would address the matter a little more accurately than he did in that press release, which is a classic illustration of how to distort the facts by putting out incomplete information.
Let me take the hon. Gentleman's main points one by one, as they are central to the argument—especially that of my hon. Friends, whose frequent criticism is that, while they do not disagree with family credit, it should he made more effective and should reach more people. The hon. Gentleman's first point was elaborated on the radio this morning: "The Secretary of State cannot parade family credit as a substitute for child benefit." I have never done that, and shall never try to.
The hon. Gentleman's second point related to numbers: he quoted figures from the end of February and the end of June. Let me acquaint him with the precise position, which I could have done earlier had he asked me. At the end of March—at the beginning of the campaign—253,528 people were in receipt of family credit. The latest figure—again, the hon. Gentleman would have been welcome to it had he asked—is 268,984, an increase of 15,456, as opposed to the 9,400 that he suggested. More important, the underlying live load—those who might be expected to be full recipients of family credit—is now running at 315,000. There was an enormous surge in take-up, and 78,673 applications have not yet been considered.
The third point is interrelated. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the success rate was much higher before the campaign began, and gave a figure that did not conform to the facts. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the success rate before the campaign began was an impressive 70 per cent. When it began, a large number of people wrote in who were clearly not entitled to the money—people with no children, for example. I do not imagine that the hon. Gentleman would have liked us to help them. That, of course, meant that the initial disallowance rate was higher than it is now.
I know that the hon. Gentleman would like the campaign to succeed. He will be happy to know that since it began the success rate has risen to 55 per cent., and is improving: the figure for the current week is 60 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should be delighted at that. Some 315,000 people—which could be up to about 63 per cent. of the underlying potential beneficiaries—are now able to receive family credit. That represents something approaching 75 to 80 per cent. of the expenditure potential. Surely everyone wants us to succeed in helping poorer families at work.
In his attempt to decry aspects of the campaign, the hon. Gentleman was utterly mistaken in trying to illustrate—with figures that I have shown to be wrong—costs per person. Again he must be aware, as must the audience outside—I know that the hon. Member for Birkenhead is aware of this—that the potential claimant population is constantly changing. As is shown by research that I have placed in the House, the key is a lack of awareness of family credit: ignorance caused the main difficulty in targeting additional help effectively.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Moore: No. Perhaps I could explain, because this is information that the House will find important.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead will be delighted to know that the latest research suggests that following the campaign, which ended during the last two weeks, 93 per cent. are now aware of family credit, 90 per cent. were aware of the campaign and 83 per cent. know that it is a benefit for working families. I thought that it would be useful to get that on the record. I should like the take-up to be even higher and more people on low incomes in work to benefit from family credit, but that shows that, happily, it is building up into a success story.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Moore: No. I want to bring my remarks to an end, because I have already been on my feet for some time.
I remind the House that I said that we are not talking about family credit as a substitute for child benefit. We are talking about a judicious admixture of child benefit—£4·5 billion—of family credit, where expenditure is well over £400 million, which is a very good increase on the £180 million for family income supplement, and of income support, which goes to 1·1 million families with 3 million children, when one adds up the income support and family credit beneficiaries.
I urge the House to reject the Lords amendment. It would take away the flexibility that has contributed to the Government's outstanding record of support for families, achieved by a combination of economic success and a judicious admixture of universal child benefit and targeted help through income support and family credit. It is clearly in the interests of families that we should retain the flexibility of the present statutes.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Secretary of State began his speech by referring to the number of times that we have debated the matter recently. I see from the speech that I made the last time we debated the matter in April that I said that the advantage of regular debates was that they reminded Ministers and the Treasury that this issue will not go away until child benefit is uprated. I did not, I must confess, appreciate that the issue would return to harass them quite as quickly as it has done. Nevertheless, the debate is timely because, at the end of October, the House will receive from the right hon. Gentleman, or his successor, an uprating statement for next April. In terms of sitting weeks, the end of October is only a fortnight away. This is the last chance to influence that statement before it is drawn up.
The Secretary of State referred to my former colleague, Alec Jones, whom I remember well as a close and valued friend. The Secretary of State quoted him as arguing why it would not be appropriate annually to uprate child benefit. The Secretary of State gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) at that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr was seeking to put to the Secretary of State the point that child benefit replaced, in part, the child tax allowance, a point to which the Secretary of State referred later.
The annual indexation of tax allowances was introduced in 1977, by which time child tax allowances were being phased out because they were being replaced by child benefit. If child benefit had not then already been coming into place, and if child tax allowances had had a stable future, there is no doubt whatsoever that child tax allowances would have been included in the statutory

indexation. I think that I can say that with some authority. Although the Secretary of State disputed the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr, I think that my hon. Friend is in a better position to be an authority on this matter since he drafted the amendment that gave effect to the tax allowance indexation.
The Secretary of State was good enough not to waste the time of the House by debating the amendment as such, and I shall follow his precedent, but the nub of the debate on this issue of principle is not whether child benefit should be annually uprated but why child benefit should be annually frozen. I noticed the interesting omission from the Secretary of State's speech of an answer to a question that he was asked from below the Gangway by one of his hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), which was: accepting that child benefit may not require annual uprating, did the right hon. Gentleman accept that child benefit was appropriate for uprating from time to time? The House received no reply to that question. It is precisely because that question is unanswered that many of us believe that it is not only reasonable but prudent to conclude that child benefit is under threat.

Mr. Moore: I did not and cannot answer, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman knows precisely. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) points out, there are clear arrangements in the public expenditure White Paper to allow annual indexation, but the Secretary of State is beholden to make a judgment each year. It would be improper for me to pre-empt that judgment.

Mr. Cook: I shall turn in a moment to what judgment the Secretary of State should exercise on the coming year. I shall willingly give way a second time if he wishes to clarify this point. Leaving aside what individual judgment he may reach next year, and leaving aside the individual judgment that he reached last year, does he or does he not accept that, perhaps not annually, but from time to time, it would be appropriate and correct to uprate child benefit? I shall give way to the Secretary of State again if he wishes to answer that question, which he has now ducked twice. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State has certainly not given me or the House the answer.

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman is playing the usual games.

Mr. Cook: The Secretary of State says that I am playing the usual games. I am generously giving him an opportunity to clarify what is in his mind.

Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: I want to give way to the Secretary of State. Only he can answer this question. I am not interested in whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is appropriate from time to time to increase child benefit. I want to know whether the Secretary of State thinks that that is appropriate. The fact that he will not answer that question must leave hanging in the air the possibility, if not the certainty, that this Secretary of State does not believe that it is appropriate to increase child benefit.
The Secretary of State said that he must apply his mind to that judgment in an agonising, painful reflection every year. I invite the House to apply its mind to the judgment


that the Secretary of State might exercise for the coming year. We are talking about April 1990. The Lords amendment proceeds from the starting point that this year and last year are water under the bridge. We are debating what happens to uprating in April next year. That will be the third year of a freeze in child benefit if it is not uprated. Every additional year of freeze must make the judgment in uprating child benefit in the subsequent year that bit more compelling.
Child benefit has now been frozen for two years. In those two years, it has lost over 10 per cent. in value—£39 in a full year. That is a significant sum, especially to a mother on a tight budget. Some hon. Members will have noticed that during the Euro-elections I went shopping for clothes for an imaginary five-year-old. I was able with that sum to kit him out completely, with a track suit, shirt, vest, trainers and three pairs of socks and still have enough change left over to buy a milk shake to thank him for keeping quiet. It is important that those of us who do not feel the pinch of a weekly budget should recognise that it is that kind of shopping expedition that we make more difficult, if not impossible, for mothers by not uprating child benefit. It is against that background that the Secretary of State must exercise his judgment as to whether it would be appropriate to uprate child benefit next April.
Even if the Treasury is correct and inflation has peaked and from now will gently glide down in the same way that it bumped up, by next April the RPI will have notched up 17 percentage points since April 1987, when child benefit was last increased. In short, over those three years, child benefit will have lost a sixth of its purchasing power. In those circumstances, I find it impossible to conceive what may weigh in the balance when the Secretary of State comes to exercise his judgment to tell against uprating child benefit in that third year. The only reason why child benefit may be kept frozen for a third year is that those who freeze it hope that, if they leave it long enough in the deep freeze, it will be found frozen to death.
If that were to happen, we would lose a very important benefit. I have three grounds of principle for that belief which I will rehearse briefly. First, child benefit puts money in the hands of the mother. The mother is overwhelmingly the parent who feeds and clothes the children and she gets the cash from child benefit. Secondly, it is reliable. It is often the only stable point of reference in the budget. Low-income families, especially under this Government, are prone to get stuck in the revolving door of alternative bouts of employment and unemployment. When in employment, their wage packet may unnervingly go through bumpy rides of seasonal fluctuations in overtime. Through all that, child benefit may be the only reliable, predictable payment in the hands of the mother. It is the one income on which she can budget with confidence for her children.
Thirdly, child benefit provides a ladder out of the poverty trap. Its greatest strength is precisely the point that the Secretary of State keeps perceiving as its greatest weakness—that it does not go down if the family income goes up. It provides the family, therefore, with an incentive to find a job or do overtime without being penalised by the benefit being clawed back. It is worth recalling that a family on family credit and housing benefit can now face a clawback of over 90p in benefit for every extra pound earned. That is a penal rate of marginal taxation—double the rate of marginal taxation now experienced by the wealthiest in our community. The difficulty for the

Secretary of State is that the better he and his colleagues succeed in targeting benefits, the more difficult they make it for such households to climb out of the poverty trap.
I want to refer here to what the Secretary of State said in relation to family credit. It would be churlish of me not to welcome the marked difference of tone in the description by the Secretary of State of family credit and the way in which he related it to child benefit. I am bound to say that it was not only a different tone but a somewhat chastened tone, for a reason that I shall come to in a moment.
I entirely accept that any comprehensive system of benefits for families will be a mix of means-tested benefits and universal benefits. The Opposition have never had any doubt about that. We accept that means-tested benefits will have a role to play. The doubt that has existed in previous debates is whether the Secretary of State accepted that universal benefits, in the shape of child benefit, had any future role in that mix. I accept from what he said tonight that there appeared to be a new note of caution in his assessment and that there appeared to be a willingness to recognise that means-tested benefits require to be supported by universal benefits such as child benefit.
The reason for that is not far to seek. Since the last debate, to which the Secretary of State was good enough to refer, we have had the relaunch of family credit. As the Secretary of State will recall, family credit was forecast to achieve an uptake of 470,000. We must measure the subsequent numbers who claim against that forecast.

Mr. Moore: indicated dissent.

Mr. Cook: The Secretary of State shakes his head. That figure was in the public expenditure White Paper that was printed for last year, and if a figure that was included in the public expenditure White Paper does not constitute a Government forecast, we are moving into an era of rubbery statistics to an extent that I had not previously expected even of this Government.

Mr. Moore: Does the hon. Gentleman assume that if new data appear they are ignored by the Government and that if the old data are wrong we just ignore that? If he argues on the basis of the only clear knowledge we have, he knows the audience we believe to exist, as opposed to the 1985–86 figures, is a potential audience of 500,000 in 1988–89. He knows that that is the potential beneficiary audience for family credit, so what on earth is he talking about?

Mr. Cook: I am not talking about the 1985–86 figures, and I am rather surprised that the Secretary of State should think that the forecast of 470,000 was for 1985–86. The figure appeared in the White Paper for 1987–88, for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible. It was the figure that he himself chose. I entirely agree with him that it turned out to be completely wrong, but it was his figure and his forecast. [Interruption.] I am using it to point out to the Secretary of State the margin of error in his forecast. His forecast was 470,000, and I agree with him, in the light of history, that it was a risible figure.
The take-up for family credit has since settled down at around the 250,000 mark. The Secretary of State taxed me with using figures in error in my press release. I have to confess that he may be right that the figures are erroneous; after all, they are entirely drawn from figures supplied by


him in parliamentary answers. [Interruption.] To the end of June. It was the figure that he quoted at social security questions only 10 days ago.
The figure of 263,000 is, as I said in my press release, precisely 9,400 more than the figure for the end of February. I could have made the figure even smaller. I could have taken the figure for the end of November. The figure for the end of November last year was 260,000—at least, that was the figure given by the Secretary of State, although perhaps he will wish to correct it now. That means that the figure is 9,400 higher than in March and only 3,400 higher than at the end of November.
Suppose that I take the point made by the Secretary of State and accept his latest revision of the figures, which would give us an additional 15,000 since the end of February—although only 9,000 since the end of November. I agree that that will change my calculations. In my press release I calculated that we were paying £510 in advertising costs for every additional new claimant of family credit. I concede that that was based on the figure of 9,400 claimants, which I had taken from the earlier figures given by the Secretary of State.
Suppose that I take the figure that the Secretary of State has given the House tonight—15,000 additional new claimants. That means that the advertising fee per additional claimant is working out at £320. Even at £320 in extra expenditure for every new claimant, we must be looking at what must bid fair for the prize for the least efficient benefit in Europe. Not only that, but we are left with barely a quarter of a million claimants and a refusal rate that has increased. In my press release I cited a refusal rate of 44 per cent. The Secretary of State corrected that by saying that the success rate is 55 per cent. If he reflects for a moment, he will notice that the two figures add up to 100 per cent. and are entirely reconcilable. The chief result of all the publicity—[Interruption.] If I did not, I cheerfully accept the correction. The figure is 44 per cent., although I am mystified as to why the Secretary of State should think that we believed any other figure as we are trusting, simple souls using information that he gives in parliamentary answers.
The Secretary of State has carried out a hold experiment, and I suppose that we should be grateful to him for it. He has tested means-tested benefits as a means of targeting families with children. So far it has been an expensive experiment. It has cost his Department and the taxpayer £5 million. The more he has persisted with the experiment in family credit, the more he has underlined the attractions of child benefit.
Child benefit is cost-effective. There is no need to advertise child benefit on every passing bus. It is cheap to administer. It costs only 2p per pound delivered to the claimant. Secondly, it achieves near complete take-up. Unlike family credit, it hits nearly all its targets. It gets through to many more mothers in poor families than family credit. In particular, it gets through to the quarter of a million families poor enough to qualify for family credit whom the Secretary of State cannot find or cannot persuade to apply for family credit.
10.30 pm
I began by mentioning how often we have debated this issue. I want to end by asking a question to which I have sought an answer on each of the past three occasions when

we have debated the issue. It is a question which the Secretary of State, perhaps wisely, has never attempted to answer. As he fairly said, child benefit in part replaced child tax allowance. Had it remained a tax allowance I have not the slightest doubt, and I question whether any Conservative right hon. of hon. Member doubts, that the Government would have uprated it annually. They would have come to the House with pride and asked us to admire them for having done so.
There is, however, a clear and pertinent contrast. Under the Government, the married man's tax allowance has gone up by 22 per cent. in real terms. In the same period, child benefit has gone down by 13 per cent. If the amendment is rejected, and if the Secretary of State subsequently fails to uprate child benefit for next April, child benefit will have declined under the Government, not by 13 per cent., but by between 19 and 20 per cent., depending on what the rate of inflation is next April.
I ask the Secretary of State, or any hon. Member who can think of a convincing answer, by what feat of mental gymnastics can it be said that the cost of maintaining a wife has gone up one fifth while the cost of bringing up a child has gone down one fifth? Those who can find an honest answer to that question to their own satisfaction are welcome to vote with the Secretary of State; plainly they are beyond the bounds of reason. I invite into our Lobby tonight those who find that question difficult and troubling to answer and who recognise that it exposes the double standards of an Administration willing to cut benefits in order to cut taxation. We shall vote tonight against those double standards.

Sir Ian Gilmour: As has been said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), this is well-trodden ground, so I will not detain the House for long.
I want to examine the two arguments that my right hon. Friend advanced tonight and in our debate on 24 April for not uprating child benefit. The first argument was to rely on what Lady Castle and Mr. Alec Jones said in 1975. I find that argument extraordinary. Apart from anything else, the dates are wrong. What Lady Castle might have said in 1977 had she been Secretary of State would have been more relevant, but that my right hon. Friend should use Lady Castle at all is most odd. Twice a week for many years my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has excoriated the Opposition for the appalling mess they made in government in the late 1970s. Why does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State now take what they did in the 1970s as an example of what he should do now? To shelter behind Lady Castle is extraordinary, particularly as the Government now say—I hope that they are right, although I have no way of knowing—that the economy has been transformed under their aegis. Why should we seek to follow what the Labour Government, in their benighted days and their hopelessly incompetent ways, did in 1975?
That is as specious an argument as one could possibly find, except perhaps the next one advanced by my right hon. Friend when he talked about "the overall pattern" and his statutory duty. On 24 April he said:
I do not have the choice of looking at child benefit in isolation. I must rightly consider the relationship between child benefit and the economic and social patterns of our country."—[Official Report, 24 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 722.]


During the past two years, what change has there been in the economic and social patterns of our country? Does he believe that too many children have been born? Does he wish to discourage that by cutting child benefit? It is important to know what social and economic patterns have changed. In the past two years substantial tax cuts have been showered around. Income tax allowance and every other allowance have been raised. The one thing that has not been raised is child benefit.

Mr. Moore: If my right hon. Friend looks at Hansard for 24 April, he will see that I illustrated for the two years in question precisely what had happened to families who were in receipt of substantial, net after-tax increases and the way in which in those years those families who did not so benefit benefited more than they would have done otherwise because of the precise policies that I had introduced.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That was just the intervention that I wanted. The Government have done nothing like enough for the really poor, but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the simple point that was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins): that people with children have greater expense than people without children. That applies at all levels of income. By refusing to uprate child benefit two years running, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is treating people with children worse than people without children.
I want to know what changes in the social and economic patterns of the country justify that. I cannot think of one. It is clear to all hon. Members that people at all levels of income have greater expense if they have children than if they have not. That is why we had child tax and family allowances before and why we have child benefit now.
It is not good enough for my right hon. Friend to refer to the very poor, on which the Government's record is not all that good. That is why my right hon. Friend did not answer my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North and for High Peak. However, I am talking not about the really poor but about people with families above the level of family credit and income support. When tax cuts and income tax allowance are being showered all around, why should people with children benefit less than anybody else?
That is why, with great respect to my right hon. Friend, I cannot take him seriously when he talks about his review. If he reviewed things properly, he could not possibly come to that conclusion. It is not within the bounds of reason. It has only happened—to some extent this lets out my right hon. Friend—because the Government have an insensate desire to cut public expenditure. They think that child tax allowance is not expenditure but that child benefit is, so they cut it. That is not the decision of my right hon. Friend, but of the Government, and they are to blame.
At some stage the Government will have to deal with the problem of horizontal equity. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary singularly failed to do that the other night, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has singularly failed to do so today. Until they do, they will be discriminating against people with children.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I want to follow on from the last point made by the right

hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). There is no doubt that the central problem that has emerged in debate after debate on this issue—this is the third that we have had in the House this year; one in January, one in April and again tonight—is the Secretary of State's inherently weak position in the Government.
In January, the right hon. Gentleman attempted to swathe himself in legislative complexity about how tied his hands were. He followed that with further arguments to which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) alluded in his speech in April. Tonight, he has, in a sense, ignored the core of the debate, which is that the Government were defeated in the other place after the arguments had been comprehensively trailed. Rebellious Conservative Back Benchers, Cross Benchers and the various Opposition groupings prevented them from mustering a persuasive argument to justify the attitudes that they have taken over the past two years on child benefit.
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham is right to remind us that this has been a two-year process. When the decision not to uprate was first made, there was some allusion to the fact that it should be viewed only in the context of the financial constraints and the economic decisions of the Government in that year. Then it was repeated, and now the Government are attempting to knock out a Lords amendment. If left further unchecked, it is clearly the Government's intention to allow child benefit to wither on the vine and die. It is as simple as that, and that is why it would be a good idea to fire a shot across the bows not just of the Department of Social Security, but of the Treasury. A substantial rebellion by Conservative Members would constitute such a shot.
The Secretary of State treated us to a trip down memory lane when he spoke about the mid-1970s. In that context, I quote from an editorial in the Financial Times. It appeared at the end of last year, and in a sense it puts the historical context of the debate in much fairer and fuller relief than did the Secretary of State. The editorial says:
Much of the opposition to child benefit … reflects a misunderstanding of what it is meant to achieve. It is said to be poorly targeted because it is received by rich as well as poor mothers. Yet it was a replacement for child tax allowances. Nobody argues that personal allowances are poorly targeted because both high and low earners receive them.
The Financial Times put the case with considerable cogency. However, only three years earlier, in June 1985, the Green Paper, entitled "Reform of Social Security", put it with even greater cogency and more persuasiveness:
The Government accept the case for continuing the system of child benefit. It is right that families with children at all income levels should receive some recognition for the additional costs of bringing up children and that the tax benefit system should allow for some general redistribution of resources from those without children to those who have responsibility for caring for them.
There we have the Government's own words.
The Prime Minister is continually alluding to the previous Labour Government. The Secretary of State is willing to go all the way back to 1975 and cite the actions of the Labour Government to justify being forced to carry out actions. Why does he not go back to 1985 and to the words of his Department's Green Paper on the reform of social security? If he and his Department no longer subscribe to what they said three years ago, as opposed to what Labour Ministers said 13 years ago, that further underscores the need to answer the question posed by the


hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). The hon. Gentleman asked the Minister whether, if he no longer accepts that argument, he therefore accepts any continuing and viable future role for child benefit.
The Minister is asking the House to reject an amendment passed in another place. That is consistent, if his argument has any force—I do not think that it has much—with the longer-term thinking of the Minister and his Department. He has manifestly failed to tell us clearly about his long-term thinking, and from his demeanour at the Dispatch Box it is clear that he has no intention of telling us. That is as strong and powerful an argument as any that could be advanced for upholding the decision made in another place.
The House may have been treated to one swansong earlier in respect of the poll tax and the Secretary of State for the Environment. This shabby exercise for the third time this year by the Secretary of State for Social Security would be a fitting epitaph on his ministerial tombstone.

Mr. John Maples: The hon. Members for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and for Livingstone (Mr. Cook) spoke about the old system of child tax allowances. Such allowances were valuable to the Labour Government because under that Government tax rates were incredibly high. If we still had a system of child tax allowances and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security had indexed them for the last 10 years, the Opposition would criticise us for reducing their real value by cutting the rate of income tax. Therefore, they should be careful about how they use that argument.
This debate used to be something of an annual event, but this is the fourth time in the last four months—three times here and once in another place—that the subject has been debated. Two things characterised those debates. The first is that the arguments on both sides do not change very much and the second, and perhaps more pertinent, is that those who continually argue for the annual uprating of child benefit fail to take into account the way that the world has moved on in the last 10 years. That has happened in two respects. First, we have seen the ability and willingness of people to shoulder more responsibility when they can afford to do so. Secondly, we have seen the quite extraordinary degree to which real take-home pay has increased at all levels of income.
I simply cannot believe that anyone who favours this Lords amendment, or any of its predecessors, if given £650 million by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to spend on trying to help families with children, who are in some financial difficulty, would choose to spread it around at a rate of £1·10 a week and not concentrate it on those who need the help. Most of the people who receive child benefit do not need the help.

Mr. Hawkins: If my hon. Friend would like to target child benefit only at the lower paid, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State clearly would, why do we not abolish the married man's allowance and target that at the lower paid as well? Why do we not do the same with mortgage interest tax relief?

Mr. Maples: Often, when I used to speak in debates on the economy and taxation, I used to argue strongly for the elimination of all personal allowances and a reduction in the rate of income tax as a compensation. Mortgage interest tax relief has been frozen and we have recently introduced restrictions on deductions for pensions. My hon. Friend had better be a little careful about that argument.
The main piece of reality that the proponents of the Lords amendment fail to take into account is the enormous increase in real take-home pay during the past 10 years. During that period, the real take-home pay of someone on average earnings has increased by 31 per cent., or £52 a week. The pay of someone on three quarters of average earnings has increased by 28 per cent., or £38 a week. At all levels of earnings, people are substantially better off. People can and should devote part of that increased wealth to taking more responsibility for their own affairs.
In the context of such increased earnings, the failure to index child benefit, which would mean £1·10 per child per week, must be insignificant. The policy that I believe my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has followed for the past two years, and which I hope he will continue to pursue, is that child benefit should be frozen and that we should give generous help to people on low incomes with children through the family credit and income support systems. For the others, we should, by the control that that exercises on public spending, reduce their liability to income tax.

Mr. Frank Field: We keep hearing figures about take-home pay and what has happened to it during the past two years. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there were similar increases in take-home pay in the two years prior to that which he is quoting, and that is why the Conservative party won the general election? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government were wrong to increase child benefit in those two years?

Mr. Maples: I do not have the figures for the previous two years. If it was so, I suppose the same argument applies.
There is one misconception about uprating child benefit. It is that in some way it helps poor families with children. That is the one group of people who are not helped at all. Any increase in child benefit is automatically corrected by a reduction in income support or family credit. As people can now receive family credit on an income of up to £10,000 a year if they have two teenage children, it follows that anyone who earns less than that will gain no benefit by an annual or other uprating of child benefit. Moreover, almost everyone above that level will pay more in income tax than they get in child benefit. The way to help them is not to increase child benefit but to reduce their liability to tax.
This is the old argument of universal against means-tested benefits, which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was rehearsing on the radio this morning. What he did not tell the public then or earlier in this debate is that the natural and inevitable corollary of a universal social security benefit is high taxation to pay for it. I think that we should move away from that, give generous help to people in need and leave others to take care of themselves. It is no business of the state to have one


of its agencies take money out of the pockets of husbands so that another agency of the state, after the expenses of both, can put it back in the pockets of their wives.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Maples: No, I am coming to a conclusion so that others may have an opportunity to speak. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have his.
Nor is it any business of the state to put up everyone's tax so that we can raise everyone's benefits. We have a crazy system. We take £4·5 billion a year in tax out of the pockets of husbands and give rather less than that back to their wives through the social security system. We have a system in which low earners with no children subsidise high earners with children. We have a system by which increases in those benefits are of no use whatever to the families on lowest incomes and in the greatest need.
I cannot believe that anyone would reinvent a system of child benefit to try to help families in financial difficulties. It is a holdover from days of penal taxation and the idea that the Government know best how to run people's lives. It fails to take account of how real incomes have risen and it fails to leave people alone to run their own lives. We have now had this debate four times this year and several times over the past few years. I hope that this will be the end of them because out of the four debates this year, the Government may have won only three of the votes, but they have won four of the arguments.

Mr. Raison: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for two things: first, that he accepted that this debate is about the principle of regular uprating of child benefit, and that is the course that the debate has taken; and, secondly, for his confirmation of what we all know—that money is provided in the public expenditure White Paper for the uprating of child benefit. There is no question of our asking for something that was not planned for. The plan allows for uprating, and we should adopt it.
My right hon. Friend talked about support for children as a judicious admixture of child benefit, family credit and income support. I accept that, and it is right that it should be such a mixture. Surely the essence of the case is that if child benefit is not uprated it will lose its meaning and we shall have only the means-tested benefits of income support and family credit to rely on, and we shall lose something that is of enormous benefit to large numbers of people who do not find the business of having children something that is easily borne. That is the heart of the matter.
It is vital that child benefit should be looked at in the context of the tax and social security systems as a whole. It is no good separating one from the other. The Government seem to be favouring targeting, but we already give indiscriminate, untargeted tax relief to occupational pensioners, to mortgage holders, to single persons, to married couples and now to people who take up private health insurance. The only targeting about all that is that those who get the most by and large get the largest tax relief. It is not possible to give all those forms of financial support to those groups and then, for those with children, who clearly are bearing extra cost, gradually phase out the form of support that helps them—child benefit. It must be accepted that the erosion of child benefit, which is what we are talking about, will do enormous damage to children.
We debated the other day a different approach—a return to child tax allowances. That is not a good approach, and I do not support it. Over the years, child benefit has proved to be the right answer. I shall not go into the reasons at length, but we know that there are several powerful advantages. First, as has been said, it does not create disincentives or the poverty trap. Secondly, it does not have the problems of take-up which persist with family credit. Thirdly, it does not require an elaborate system of means testing, nor does it induce the dependency that goes with that. Fourthly, it helps non-taxpayers and taxpayers alike, particularly the not-quite-poor—those just above the level at which they will receive means-tested benefit.
Fifthly, child benefit goes to the mother, which is something that the Conservative party has always stressed. In a world of family breakdown, mounting divorce and far too many one-parent families, the certainty of child benefit—the fact that it comes without means testing—is one of the most powerful arguments for its being maintained, and maintaining it must mean uprating it. It represents a commitment for which the Conservative party has stood for a long time.
I shall conclude by quoting some words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister which support that contention. In a written answer, she stated:
It has for long been the view of all parties that our tax and benefit systems should recognise the needs of families with children, and should differentiate between such families and those without responsibilities for children. Child tax allowances achieved this but gave no help to families below the tax threshold. Family allowances did not recognise the first child. Child benefit, which replaced both allowances, was introduced in 1977 with the support of all parties. I am glad that, even in the very difficult circumstances of this year. we have been able to increase child benefit by about 10½ per cent. and so honour the pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on 28 July last year."—[Official Report, 17 March 1981; Vol. 1, c. 55.]
That quotation illustrates clearly the principle that there is a difference between those who have children and those who have not. It is the job of our tax and benefit systems to have regard to that. That is why I hope that the House will support the proposal of my right hon. Friend Lady Faith full.

Mr. John Marshall: Much of the debate so far has revolved round the principle of whether child benefit should be uprated next year, but the amendment goes much wider than that. The amendment says, in effect, that there should be no discrimination in favour of the poorest children in the community. It provides that family credit and child benefit must be uprated at the same level. Surely we want to concentrate our assistance on the poorest within the community. The amendment prevents us from doing that. For those drawing family credit, the amendment will be of no benefit. We want a system that helps the poorest and ensures that future increases do not necessarily go to those at the top.
We know that half those receiving child benefit are earning above-average wages. About 500,000 of those receiving child benefit are paying tax at the rate of 40 per cent. It seems wrong that we should be encouraged by the other place to say that those people should receive the same increase as people in receipt of family credit. It is much better that the poorest in the community should receive the extra assistance that they need. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir. I.


Gilmour) quoted statements from the past. Over the past two years, family credit has been introduced to help a greater number of children in need. That is one of the Government's greatest achievements, and I welcome it. We should concentrate our assistance upon those in greatest need rather than scatter it around like confetti, giving money to many of those who do not need it.

Mr. Marlow: Very briefly, I have some sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because he is trapped within the system of Government expenditure. I am talking to my right hon. Frind so I am sure that he is listening even though he is offering me the back of his head. Not for the first—no, I will not say that. I put it—[Interruption.] I have been told to behave myself. I put it to my right hon. Friend that I have some sympathy with him because he is trapped by the system of Government expenditure. My right hon. Friend is given a budget and he is told, "Here are all your priorities, here are your needs and here are your problems. This is the amount of money that you have got. How are you going to deal with it?" As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) said, quite rightly, my right hon. Friend has concentrated the resources available to him on the poorest, the most needy in the land. That is what he has done. But where my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West is wrong is on this score. If my hon. Friend needs that money—if he has to have it—he should not take it from other people's children. He should get it from somewhere else. What he ought to do is to look at Government expenditure overall, not just on the basis of my right hon. Friend's Department. If he did that, we would come to a different conclusion and have a different answer.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) posed a question to us. He said that, if we believe that the cost of looking after a wife or catering for a wife has gone up by a fifth, and that the cost of catering for a child has gone down by a fifth, we should support the Government. But it is more vivid than that. The Government, this Government, our Government, are committed to reducing taxes in future. If they reduce, as we hope that they will do, taxes in future, they reduce taxes for everybody. But they have got to get that money from somewhere. They might get part of that money from increased revenue, but they will possibly get some of that money from reductions in Government expenditure in other areas.
If child benefit is not being increased in line with inflation, the reality is—as the hon. Gentleman and the whole House know—that it is being reduced. So to reduce taxes, which we want, money is to be taken from families with children and given to those without children. That is manifest nonsense. However hard-line a Tory one may be, and I am looked on as being a hard-line Tory—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. Withdraw."] All right, I am not a hard-line Tory, I am a soft-line Tory. I am a wet.
11 pm
If Sherlock Holmes were a member of the parliamentary Lobby and a sketch writer and he was sat up in the Gallery looking down on us, he would refer to tonight as being the night of the unanswered question. My right hon. Friend, in his remarks, said that when child benefit was introduced there was a commitment from time to time to increase child benefit. I have asked my right hon. Friend,

but I am afraid that I was not dignified with a reply. The hon. Gentleman—far more important than me—on the Opposition Front Bench asked the same question. Many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House want to know, need to know, are required to know the answer to that question tonight before we vote.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 234.

Division No.310]
[11.01 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Alexander, Richard
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Day, Stephen


Allason, Rupert
Devlin, Tim


Amess, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amos, Alan
Dover, Den


Arbuthnot, James
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Durant, Tony


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Eggar, Tim


Ashby, David
Emery, Sir Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Atkins, Robert
Evennett, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Favell, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baldry, Tony
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Batiste, Spencer
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bendall, Vivian
Forman, Nigel


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forth, Eric


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fox, Sir Marcus


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Franks, Cecil


Body, Sir Richard
Freeman, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
French, Douglas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Gardiner, George


Bottomley, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gorst, John


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gow, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bright, Graham
Gregory, Conal


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Browne, John (Winchester)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hague, William


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Jeremy


Butcher, John
Hannam, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carttiss, Michael
Harris, David


Cash, William
Hayes, Jerry


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hayward, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sydney
Heddle, John


Chope, Christopher
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Churchill, Mr
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hind, Kenneth


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Colvin, Michael
Holt, Richard


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cran, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Curry, David
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)






Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Raffan, Keith


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, John


Irvine, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Irving, Charles
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jackson, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jessel, Toby
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Key, Robert
Rost, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rowe, Andrew


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knapman, Roger
Ryder, Richard


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knowles, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lawrence, Ivan
Shelton, Sir William


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lightbown, David
Speed, Keith


Lilley, Peter
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stevens, Lewis


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Major, Rt Hon John
Stokes, Sir John


Malins, Humfrey
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mans, Keith
Sumberg, David


Maples, John
Summerson, Hugo


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maude, Hon Francis
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Mellor, David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Miller, Sir Hal
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Miscampbell, Norman
Thorne, Neil


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thornton, Malcolm


Mitchell, Sir David
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tracey, Richard


Moore, Rt Hon John
Trippier, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Twinn, Dr Ian


Neale, Gerrard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Needham, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholls, Patrick
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walden, George


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walker, Bill (T'slde North)


Norris, Steve
Waller, Gary


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Ward, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Page, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Watts, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wells, Bowen


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Wheeler, John


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Whitney, Ray


Pawsey, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wiggin, Jerry


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilkinson, John


Portillo, Michael
Wilshire, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Wolfson, Mark


Price, Sir David
Wood, Timothy





Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Tellers for the Ayes:


Younger, Rt Hon George
Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Stephen Dorrell




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Allen, Graham
Foster, Derek


Alton, David
Fraser, John


Anderson, Donald
Fyfe, Maria


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Galbraith, Sam


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Galloway, George


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Ashton, Joe
George, Bruce


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Barron, Kevin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Battle, John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Beckett, Margaret
Gordon, Mildred


Beggs, Roy
Gould, Bryan


Beith, A. J.
Graham, Thomas


Bell, Stuart
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Grocott, Bruce


Bermingham, Gerald
Hardy, Peter


Blunkett, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Boateng, Paul
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Boyes, Roland
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Home Robertson, John


Buckley, George J.
Hood, Jimmy


Caborn, Richard
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Callaghan, Jim
Howells, Geraint


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cartwright, John
Illsley, Eric


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clay, Bob
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Clelland, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cohen, Harry
Kennedy, Charles


Coleman, Donald
Kilfedder, James


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kirkwood, Archy


Cousins, Jim
Knox, David


Crowther, Stan
Lambie, David


Cryer, Bob
Lamond, James


Cummings, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Cunningham, Dr John
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Terry


Darling, Alistair
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Livingstone, Ken


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Livsey, Richard


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dewar, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dixon, Don
Loyden, Eddie


Dobson, Frank
McAllion, John


Doran, Frank
McAvoy, Thomas


Douglas, Dick
McCrindle, Robert


Duffy, A. E. P.
McFall, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McKelvey, William


Dykes, Hugh
McLeish, Henry


Eadie, Alexander
Maclennan, Robert


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McNamara, Kevin


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Madden, Max


Fatchett, Derek
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marek, Dr John


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fisher, Mark
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Flannery, Martin
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Flynn, Paul
Maxton, John






Meacher, Michael
Prescott, John


Meale, Alan
Primarolo, Dawn


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Quin, Ms Joyce


Michael, Alun
Radice, Giles


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Randall, Stuart


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Rathbone, Tim


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Redmond, Martin


Morgan, Rhodri
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Richardson, Jo


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Robertson, George


Mullin, Chris
Robinson, Geoffrey


Nellist, Dave
Rogers, Allan


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Rooker, Jeff


O'Brien, William
Rowlands, Ted


O'Neill, Martin
Ruddock, Joan


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Salmond, Alex


Parry, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Patchett, Terry
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Pendry, Tom
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Pike, Peter L.
Short, Clare


Powell. Rav (Ogmore)
Sillars. Jim





Skinner, Dennis
Walley, Joan


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Wareing, Robert N.


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Snape, Peter
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Soley, Clive
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Squire, Robin
Wilson, Brian


Steel, Rt Hon David
Winnick, David


Stott, Roger
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Straw, Jack
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wray, Jimmy


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Turner, Dennis



Vaz, Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Wall, Pat
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Frank Cook.


Wallace, James

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment No.2 disagreed to.

Clause 8

MOBILITY ALLOWANCE: INCREASE OF AGE LIMIT TO 80 YEARS

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 8, line 42, at beginning insert—
( ) In section 37A of the principal Act (mobility allowance) at the end of subsection (1) insert 'or is deaf and blind or is suffering from severe mental handicap such that he is either unable to walk or virtually unable to do so without physical control by another person'.
( ) In subsection (2) of that section leave out 'physical'.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
May I warmly welcome the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) to the Opposition Front Bench. He gave us a tough time in Committee. I imagine that he will do the same in his new position. Nevertheless, we warmly welcome him.
I am conscious of the fact that there will be some disappointment not only on the Opposition Benches but on the Conservative side that the Government disagree with the Lords amendment. Some of my hon. Friends have taken a keen interest in the question of a mobility allowance for the two groups who are covered by the Lords amendment. Potential beneficiaries outside the House have been watching the proceedings carefully. Campaigning organisations, not least Sense, the National Deaf Blind Helpers League and Mencap, have also been watching them with great care.
11.15 pm
In what I hope will be a brief opening of the debate I hope to do three things—first, to say something about the background to the mobility allowance, secondly, to say why I believe that it would not be appropriate for the House to agree to the Lords amendment and, thirdly, to consider the way ahead.
The mobility allowance has been a conspicious success since it was introduced by the Opposition in 1975. It replaced the old trike scheme but, unlike the trike scheme, it was made available for the first time to severely disabled people with mobility difficulties, whether or not they were able to drive. They were given a cash allowance that they could spend as they wished, either on a motor car or on other ways of broadening their horizons or enhancing their lives.
When the scheme was introduced the criteria were largely those that governed the trike scheme. The same criteria apply now, although case law has to a certain extent modified them. I repeat that the mobility allowance has been a great success. The growth in the number of recipients of this benefit has been impressive. Since the Government came to office, the number in receipt of mobility allowance has increased from 95,000 to 580,000. That number is steadily rising.
The increase is due to three separate factors. First, the age limit has been changed. When the scheme was first introduced the age limit was 65, then it was increased to 75, and it will rise to 80 when the Bill receives Royal Assent. That has increased the number of beneficiaries by 140,000.

Mr. Kennedy: The increase in the age threshold from 75 to 80 is to he welcomed. However, a postman in the Isle of Skye who came to see me revealed a general problem with the mobility allowance. All too often people do not realise

that such an allowance exists and that they are eligible. By the age of 65 they cannot apply for the allowance. This constituent reached the age of 65 and then realised that the allowance would be of assistance to him in a remote rural area. However, because of his age he found that he could not receive the allowance. Is the Department trying to heighten awareness of the existence of the allowance, in particular of the age after which people will be unable to apply for it, even though the age of eligibility for the award is now as high as 80?

Mr. Scott: My second point was going to be about awareness of mobility allowance, which has increased, dramatically. The more people who get it, the more other people know about it and are therefore encouraged to come forward. That is an important factor in the more than fivefold increase in take-up of this benefit over the past 10 years. In practice, people can apply up to the age of 66, as long as the condition existed before their 65th birthday. There is a 12-month period during which applications for the benefit can be made.
The third factor is the development of case law over the years since the mobility allowance was introduced. Anyone who has followed it knows that case law has sometimes taken three steps forward and two back in terms of being generous or more restrictive over the intervening period. The overall move has been in a more generous direction.
A combination of three decisions has made an important and constructive move forward. The first was the Edmunds decision and the subsequent regulations introduced by the then Labour Government following the 1978 decision about the criteria to be applied to those who were virtually unable to walk. Then, in 1986, the tribunal of commissioners, following the Lees case, made a decision on the way in which involuntary interruptions in the ability to walk could, dependent on their frequency, amount to a virtual inability to walk. There was also a series of unreported cases, which nevertheless form the body of case law, about the extent to which people who are deaf-blind and suffer from balance difficulties which lead to their needing physical support can also be entitled to the allowance. In three significant respects there has been some easement in the original conditions because of the development of case law.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend assess the number of people who fit into the two categories referred to in the amendment?

Mr. Scott: I could not do so without a much more careful analysis. Cases are decided and then the appeal tribunals and the decision-making process—in practice, independent adjudicating authorities—make decisions about the eligibility of individuals which would not necessarily be recorded as flowing from a particular case that had been decided. It is clear that each of those aspects has had a not insignificant impact on decision making.
The House may say, "We have made all those improvements, so why not accept the Lords amendment?" [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I shall explain why I feel that at this time it is not appropriate to accept the amendment which their Lordships have sent back to us. I am aware of, and have been impressed by, the case that has been made by Sense, the National Deaf Blind Helpers


League and Mencap. A number of my predecessors have met deputations from those organisations and have been sympathetic to their suggestions.
This is not an easy problem to solve. Anyone who has studied the debates in another place will realise how difficult it all is. One of the most important features of the debate in another place was the gulf between the estimates by the Government and by the disability organisations of the numbers that might benefit from the amendment. I should explain why and how the Government came to their estimate, which they derived from the data of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. It should be made clear that the relevant data are not separately set out in any of the published OPCS reports. They were derived from a computer analysis by the Department of the data tapes, which are a part of the OPCS survey.
The survey data are divided between 13 different broad areas of disability—such as locomotion, personal care, continence, seeing and hearing. Within each of those areas the OPCS reseachers have constructed a scale of severity. All that is explained in the first of the OPCS reports with which all those who study these matters will be familiar.
The aim of the Department's computer analysis of the data was to see how many people had disabilities of the type and severity such that there would be a strong presumption that they would need to be accompanied outdoors and in public, even to the extent of physical control.
Perhaps I could at this stage to interpret "physical control" as used in the amendment. It is the extent to which any parent would go in holding firmly on to a child that he or she was controlling.

Mr. Harry Ewing: It would cost the Government money, and they do not want to pay it.

Mr. Scott: Therefore, the computer analysis counted the number of people who were at the top of the severity scale for behavioural disability, for disability of intellectual functioning and for communication disability and at the top of a scale which measured liability to and severity of fits causing loss of consciousness.

Mr. Ewing: A load of rubbish.

Mr. Scott: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, however well he has dined, will listen carefully to the argument. It is a serious matter, which causes great anxiety to the individuals concerned and all those who care for them—I count myself in that company.
What it means in practice is that people who scored at the top of those various scales were liable to behavioural disturbance to such a degree that they might hit other people or injure themselves, were intellectually incapable of most of the very simple tasks that we take for granted in everyday life, were liable to frequent unpredictable fits and could neither understand nor be understood in communication even with people who knew them well.
The computer analysis was designed to eliminate double counting of people who might suffer from more than one of those disabilities. It also eliminated those whose multiple disability extended also to locomotion to an extent that they might in any case qualify for a mobility

allowance. The result is an estimate of 125,000 people in the age range 16 to 65 who would need to be accompanied in public and outdoors to the extent of physical control.
The proposers of the amendments say—of course I believe them, and I have met them and discussed their analysis—that they are not aiming at anything like such a large group. I understand that their estimate is derived from studies of the incidence of mental handicap reported in the 1971 White Paper, "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped". The overall incidence of severe mental handicap—which was then broadly defined as an IQ of less than 50—was reported there as about 120,000, people in total, although with an increasing rate of survival.
Within the total of 120,000, however, the proposers of the amendment say that they are aiming at a smaller group—those with behavioural difficulties requiring constant supervision. However, that is not what the amendment actually says. It says something quite different. The proposers estimate that group to consist of 4,400 people. I am not sure whether that number includes people in hospitals and residential homes, who are, of course, entitled to a mobility allowance without any time limit.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Leaving aside the difference in the figures—I accept his point—the Minister has just told the House that 125,000 people are affected. If the House does not approve the amendment, what help will be offered to those 125,000 people?

Mr. Scott: I shall come to that in what I want to say, because I want to deal seriously with the matter. They may, of course, be entitled to disability benefits other than the mobility allowance as a result of their incapacity. The attendance allowance and various other allowances could be available to them. However, we are now talking specifically about the mobility allowance, which was—I remind the House—introduced quite specifically as a replacement for the trike scheme, which was for people who were unable or virtually unable to walk. The question must be whether mobility allowance is the appropriate benefit for that particular group of people who suffer from those disabilities, or only for some of them. That is the question we must address in due course and which it would be inappropriate to address in the context of the Lords amendment.
I am saying in essence that I do not believe that with the best will in the world any statutory formula based on the Lords amendment could be limited to the numbers that those who support the amendment quote. The data of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show, by contrast, a large number who might qualify not for other disability allowances, but specifically for mobility allowance, if we were to pass the amendment. I emphasise the word "might". I am not saying that 125,000 would necessarily benefit if we were to pass the amendment. I am saying that there is a huge disparity between the estimate we have genuinely tried to make about the possible beneficiaries and the other figure. We arrived at a figure of 125,000, whereas those who urge the amendment have put forward a figure of about 8,000. That is a huge discrepancy. Even if our computer analysis is 100 per cent. out, we are still talking about 60,000 gainers rather than 8,000.

Mr. Rooker: So what?

Mr. Scott: It matters in terms of money. [Interruption.] Yes. It matters in terms of ensuring that mobility allowance is targeted on those who have real mobility disability and not disability across the spectrum, in which case other benefits may be more appropriate.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I am grateful to the Minister. I have resisted asking him to give way for a few minutes because I simply could not make tip my mind whether his insult to me about however well I had dined was deliberate and in character for him. I am prepared to be generous to him and say that it was not in character. I have known the Minister for a long time, and I regard that remark as being very insulting.
When the Minister talks about the measurement of whether someone qualifies for mobility allowance, he seems to ignore the stringent tests through which an applicant for mobility allowance is put. I will mention the case of one constituent, who will forgive me for mentioning him. He is Mr. Charles MacKay of Slamannan who, to prove his need for mobility allowance—which he was refused—was made to walk on Renfield street in Glasgow in the view of hundreds of people. I was going to say thousands of people, but I will be moderate and say hundreds. He had to suffer the shame of being made to walk in front of so many people and then he was refused mobility allowance. It is an insult to the 125,000 people about whom the Minister is talking to suggest that somehow they can get mobility allowance easily. It is not easy and the Minister should understand that. I do not ask him to withdraw his insulting remark about me personally, because that is a matter for him, but he should think carefully about those who are entitled to mobility allowance and do not get it.

Mr. Scott: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman that I reacted in that way. It was so uncharacteristic of him to harangue me from a sedentary position that I am afraid that I over-reacted. I withdraw my remark.
The hon. Gentleman's comment about the difficulty of qualifying for mobility allowance is hardly borne out by the fact that we have moved from about 100,000 to nearly 600,000 during the 10 years of this Government. Many more people are qualifying. I do not believe that the number of those who are qualified has increased sixfold in that time, but the number of those receiving the benefit has done so, as a result of the factors I announced at the beginning. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me particularly about the case of his constituent, I will, of course, ensure that it is drawn to the attention of those responsible for these matters, who make the independent decisions.
I am not necessarily saying that our figures are accurate; I am merely saying that there is a clear body of evidence to suggest that the figures advanced by those who persuaded their Lordships to vote for the amendment represent a gross underestimate of those who would qualify if the amendment were passed. I hope that they will look carefully at the analysis of the OPCS data that I have described. The information is now lodged in the archives of the Economic and Social Research Council in Essex. It is available to bona fide researchers and if those who promoted the amendment would like to send people to look at the information on that basis, I am happy to make it available. Alternatively, I am prepared to make a

suitably qualified member of staff of the Department available to discuss with them the basis of our findings and to see whether we can reconcile the two positions. I repeat that at the moment there is a profound disparity in the calculations of those who tabled the amendment in the other place and the Government's serious attempt to calculate the numbers who might be entitled.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Surely the entitlement of people to mobility allowance should not rest on the numbers involved and the fact that it will cost more money. The Minister seems to be saying that there is an alternative to mobility allowance for those thousands of people whose numbers were underestimated in another place. Will the Minister kindly tell the House what he has in mind that might relieve the difficulties and in some cases the real poverty of people who are blind and deaf and who, having had their expectations raised, are now faced with the Government throttling attempts to give them the very aid that they were expecting?

Mr. Scott: I say with great respect to the hon. Gentleman, whom I greatly admire, that I do not need lessons in concern for those who are deaf-blind. Since I assumed my responsibilities, the Government have spent rather more than £1 million specifically to help the deaf-blind and to improve the provision that we make for them. I am most conscious of their needs and I am anxious to ensure that their concerns are met.
Having said that, I am trying to resist an attempt to use mobility allowance for a purpose other than that for which it was introduced, as other benefits may be more appropriate for some of those who would be included were the benefit increased.
Setting aside the deaf-blind, there may be people who have suffered from mental handicap and who may have behavioural difficulties that may need constant supervision. It is going a bit far, however, to say that a person who can walk but who needs some sort of physical control—such as having to have his hand held—because of some other problem necessarily falls into the category of qualifying for mobility allowance. That was not the reason for introducing mobility allowance. I shall not quote from former holders of my office who are now in opposition and who took a firm view before we had a change of Government in 1979.
I hope that I can convince the House that we face a real dilemma. I know that a number of my hon. Friends feel very keenly about the matter—as, indeed, do I—and I want to talk a bit about the way ahead as I see it. On Monday, the last of the OPCS reports was published and all the supporting data tapes are now in the ESRC archives. They are available to those who want to inspect and analyse them.
In due course I shall explain how we shall proceed on a wider front. I have already invited comments on each of the reports as they have been published, and I shall seek to balance the conflicting claims of listening carefully to the representations made to me about the reports and the future of benefits for disabled people and of the need not unduly to delay action. Meanwhile, I hope that I can persuade the House that change in mobility allowance ahead of the wider consideration and of the magnitude that I have suggested might be involved——

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: In Committee the Minister prayed in aid the fact that the OPCS reports


were not complete. He said that once they were complete and published he would make a statement on a number of the representations that we put to him in Committee. One such representation related to the payment of the attendance allowance to the parents of severely disabled children under the age of two. We have heard nothing from the Minister and I wonder whether it would be appropriate for him now to give us some suggestion about when he hopes to make an announcement on that matter.

Mr. Scott: I cannot, not least because I want to decide on the way forward in the round. As I said in Committee and previously, that may depend on the rate of progress that we are able to make overall. Some matters might be decided against a faster track than the generality.

Mr. Corbyn: What about the Star Chamber?

Mr. Scott: This is a serious matter. We are talking about the largest survey ever conducted in this country, possibly in the world, of the extent and nature of disability and the financial circumstances of disabled people. We must look at that survey carefully and make a serious attempt to frame a pattern of disability benefits that will endure for a considerable time. We must do that in a serious and considered way. I recognise that we might have to address some urgent matters more quickly, but until we decide how quickly we shall deal with the whole disability package, it is difficult to say what we shall do with the other cases. I cannot go further than that.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: It will be done in time for the general election, no doubt.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) supported a Government who conducted a much more limited survey of the disabled which excluded children and large numbers of other disabled people from it. That survey did not approach the situation with the seriousness that we have done.

Mr. Corbyn: rose——

Mr. Scott: No, I shall not give way.
The largest survey of the disabled in this country has just been conducted. In the light of all the results we must assess what changes might be necessary in the pattern of benefit and what priority should be accorded to those changes. No doubt some changes may have to be postponed, but, in those circumstances, it would be little short of folly to rush through a potentially major change without properly considering all the issues and their implications for the system.
In those circumstances, it would be wrong to accept the amendment made in the other place and I ask for it to be reversed.

Mr. John Battle: It is worth reminding ourselves that it was not until the Amendment Paper was printed that we learnt of the Government's intention to reverse the Lords amendment.
In the House of Lords there have been other rebuffs to the Government over the Water Bill, the Electricity Bill and the Companies Bill. The Government have reversed some of those amendments, but at least they publicly declared their intention to do so. Perhaps there has been no notice from the Government today because the

Minister is too embarrassed to attract attention to the Government's reversal of the Lords amendment on access to mobility allowance.
I understand that, yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke to Conservative peers. Perhaps she humoured them and said that it did not matter what happened in the other place as she could always reverse anything with her supportive vote in this House. That should not be the Government's attitude tonight.
The amendment deals with the existing regulations covering entitlement to mobility allowance and its purpose is to ensure that the regulations cover people with a severe mental handicap and those who may be deaf and blind.
From my experience as a Member of Parliament, I know that the people who are caused the greatest difficulty and heartache are those who go through the processes for applying for mobility allowance. They genuinely believe that they are entitled to it—on the face of it, that may be correct—but they must go through a series of medical appeals and tribunals. The judgments of those tribunals are based on many inconsistent legal rulings stretching back in 10 years of case law. Many of us know of people with profound mental handicap who lack the necessary co-ordination and who need continuous assistance with their walking. Those people must go through the process of medical appeals and tribunals before they have access to the weekly mobility payments. As the Minister reminded us, the primary legislation was set out in 1975. Since that time there has been a bewildering jungle of case law as social security commissioners have considered the need for assistance for people virtually unable to walk.
The Minister referred to this being a case of three steps forward and one back. There has clearly been a lack of consistency in the decisions that have been made and Ministers should have ended any confusion about whether applications could be made in the first place. People have felt a deep sense of injustice when their claims have failed and have seemed to depend solely upon the decision of the commissioner. If the commission decisions were favour-able at the time they put in their applications, their cases might have been more favourably assessed than if they had submitted them when commission decisions were unfavourable.

Mr. Scott: When Lord Ennals and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) introduced the mobility allowance, they were at great pains to make it clear that the decisions should be made by independent authorities. That was the basis upon which the mobility allowance was introduced and it has been maintained on that basis. In the intervening period, case law has provided a more sensible framework within which those adjudicating authorities could make their decisions. I cannot stand behind every decision that they make, but the case law now gives them a much clearer framework than they had when the mobility allowance was introduced.

Mr. Battle: I do not want the Minister to get the impression that I am challenging the independence of the commissioners, but the framework is in a bit of a shambles. In 1983 some people who needed support made successful claims, but shortly afterwards another commissioner argued that under the mobility allowance regulations the inability to walk was restricted to the


physical inability to move the legs and that any other problems were irrelevant. That decision was upheld in the other place in 1985. The Minister referred to the tribunal decision that followed the Lees case in 1986. The complexity of case law has reached the point at which, to say the least, it is extremely difficult for ordinary claimants or those looking after them to know whether they meet the requirements of mobility allowance regulations. They have become a difficult maze of benefit provision. People need legal advice and representation to stand any chance of receiving mobility allowance.
I accept that, as the Minister said in Committee, the Government are in principle committed to ending the legal wrangling and to codify case law by amending primary legislation. We are suggesting that the Minister takes the opportunity to do that by withdrawing the Government's motion to disagree with the Lords amendment which will ensure access to mobility allowance to a specific group of blind, deaf and severely mentally handicapped people.
In the debate in the other place, Lord Skelmersdale said:
On the matter of mobility allowance for the deaf/blind and the mentally handicapped I cannot stress too strongly"——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not quote directly from the other place. He should paraphrase.

Mr. Battle: I was under the impression that I could quote the Under-Secretary of State, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Lord Skelmersdale emphasised that he could not stress too strongly that the Government wanted to act and were willing to act, yet were waiting for still further analysis to explore the data in more detail. Now the Government argue that the computer data tapes are available.
The Minister's figures were interesting because he suggested that 125,000 people might be included by the amendment. The number seems to go up by the week because the figure in the other place a week ago was 100,000. An increase of 25,000 in a week certainly points to a discrepancy in the figures.
The Government seem to have given what could be described as a gross overestimate of the figures and have done that deliberately to undermine the amendment. We should seriously question the Minister's statement about the figures. There is surely not a huge discrepancy with the figures presented by the National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association. It estimates that 3,200 deaf-blind people are entitled to the benefit. Before the debate started, I understood that that figure was not in question.
The careful Mencap analysis suggested that, at most, 4,404 people with severe mental handicap would be entitled to the benefit. That gives a total of 7,604. Even in the Mencap figure there was an acknowledgement that not everyone in that group would fulfil the age criteria. The answer to the question about discrepancy that the Minister put to the House lies not in the accuracy of the analysis of Mencap and the National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association. It lies in the Government's rather crude use of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys data.
The OPCS data fail to define the very target group that we are talking about—people with a mental handicap to whom the amendment specifically refers. The figures in the OPCS data include people suffering from mental illness, but any of us dealing with social policy are well aware of a crucial distinction between people who are mentally

handicapped and those who suffer from mental illness. That distinction is built into the wording of the amendment.
The Government seem to have gone for rather simplistic arithmetic. They have indiscriminately and insensitively added together a few of the OPCS categories. The Government account seems to have taken the most severe categories of disability from volume 1 using the two top scoring grades with communication difficulties, the two top scoring grades for behaviour, the top scoring grade for intellectual functioning and the top scoring grade for consciousness. However, there has been absolutely no cross-referencing in that analysis of diagnosis or of the cause of disability. The Government have simply made a judgment and I am tempted to say that in practice the computer analysis is really a guesstimate of the number of people who would need to be included. The 13 categories of people with locomotion disability in the OPCS survey do not include those who
cannot walk without continuous physical control by another person
There is no method of extraction from the OPCS tables or the data tapes that would enable the Government to distinguish between people who suffer from autism, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease or epilepsy. They must all be included in the 125,000 that the Minister has mentioned in an attempt to mislead us.
I suggest that the OPCS survey-questionnaire was not even designed to collect the specific information about the severely handicapped people referred to in the amendment. It is impossible to know from the OPCS data how many people have a mental handicap and require continuous physical assistance with walking. The target group in the amendment cannot possibly be disaggregated from the four categories. The data are not specific to the target group in the amendment which does not include all those who have a mental handicap. The Government have simply added together the four broad categories. They have then subtracted people over the age of 65 and have arrived at a rough guesstimate in an attempt to undermine the amendment. Grossing up the figures in that way simply adds up to a gross argument—an attempt to unleash floodgate fears and to suggest that there will be a great financial burden if the House accepts the Lords amendment. It seems that the Government are addicted to calculation by averages. How many times do we hear of the average wage? The figures are rarely worked through in detail.
During the debate on child benefit, the Secretary of State, who is not with us now, claimed that 70 per cent. of recipients of child benefit are on above-average earnings. I took the trouble to check that assertion with the statisticians in the Library. They could not substantiate it. The figure was corrected when I tabled another parliamentary question. Three times recently I have received follow-up replies that correct the original. It seems that the real figures are hard to get from the Government, and not least the Department of Social Security. The Government seem unable to face up to the real figures. They want to hazard a guess and correct it when press interest has moved on. The Department of Social Security is rapidly becoming the most questionable in regard to basic arithmetic.
The Minister in another place said that the Government are wanting, willing and waiting. We are entitled to ask, "Waiting for what and for how long?" The OPCS work


has been done and published. The data tapes have been available for some time. When the Minister last spoke on this issue, he had to say, as he said tonight, that they cannot do it now. In Committee, on 19 January, he told us:
there are not many months to go until July.
We are now at the end of July and we are entitled to see some sign of action. He continued:
We shall then have an unprecedented wealth of information."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 19 January 1989; c. 67.]
We are becoming involved in the absurdity of waiting for Godot on this issue. We have been waiting six months. Lord Skelmersdale said that the Government were embarking on a voyage of discovery. In March 1987, the Minister promised a survey on the matter. We have already had a major revamping of the social security system known as the Fowler review. It was promised then that work to tackle disability would be set in train.
If the Government are suggesting, yet again, that we should set out on uncharted waters, 7,600 people who we estimate should have mobility allowance will be literally left waiting. Unlike the Government on their voyage of discovery, they will go nowhere. How long will they wait? Will they have to wait for a full Bill on disability? There is no sign of one next Session. Will we have to await inclusion of the necessary resources in the Budget? That would push the issue at least two years into the future.
The blind-deaf and the severely mentally handicapped who cannot get about without assistance do not deserve the Government's deliberate dallying and their playing of the crude numbers game. All that is needed is a straightening out of existing social security law.
Why do we not use the Lords amendment as an opportunity to fine-tune primary legislation, and to clarify entitlement to mobility allowance for a specific group of people who really are in need? I am tempted to invite any Tory Members who are still thinking of voting against the Lords amendments to close their eyes, put their hands over their ears and try not to cross the road outside, but to find their way into the Lobby to vote against the motion. I urge the House not to vote against the Lords amendment.

12 midnight

Mr. John Hannam: I regret the Government's rejection of this much-needed Lords amendment, which would provide financial support to help some 3,200 blind-deaf people and 4,400 severely mentally handicapped people. The amendment does not introduce a new concept, nor extend the mobility allowance to a large group of people. The numbers that I have quoted are the real numbers, based on a careful analysis of the White Paper of 1971. Some deaf-blind and mentally handicapped people with severe mobility or behavioural difficulties receive the mobility allowance, but only after making several appeals, and others have had the allowance refused on reapplication when there has been no basic change in their circumstances. The guidelines are operated differently by different panels of professionals.
Let me quote a case as an illustration, and one that the DSS knows all about. It involves a woman aged 33 with poor dexterity who cannot be left alone for a minute because of danger to herself and those around her. She cannot have a relationship with anyone other than her mother. She cannot walk about without continuous

physical assistance and control, has an awkward gait, and cannot get up or down stairs. She cannot communicate verbally, and only grunts, and she understands only food, toys and simple commands, such as no and yes. She is a typical example of someone with a severe mental handicap, who, even on the Department's assessment, was proved to be eligible for the mobility allowance. However, she has been refused by two medical appeal tribunals, despite a successful appeal on a point of law to the social security commissioners.
My right hon. Friend and the Minister in the other place have recently spoken of the figure of 100,000 who would benefit by this amendment, and said that it is based on an analysis of data from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The figure is so much at variance with all the previously agreed figures, which were all around the 8,000 to 10,000 level, and which were discussed at the various meetings between the all-party disablement group and various successor Ministers responsible for disablement matters that we have been in touch with the Department to find out the basis for the new vast total. The Department had carried out what it called a secondary analysis of the OPCS data tapes, but was not able to give any figures, or even a reliable method of calculating the people in the group defined clearly in the amendment. The person should suffer
from severe mental handicap such that he is either unable to walk or virtually unable to do so without physical control by another person".
The OPCS survey, which has been used by my right hon. Friend and the Department of Social Security, has included the general term "mental illness", Alzheimer's disease, brain tumour and other behaviour disturbances. It has also used scales for consciousness, which include epilepsy, Parkinson's disease and other conditions. The data did not include the need to be accompanied. Curiously, the 13 categories of locomotion disability in the OPCS's first report do not include the definition
unable to walk without physical control by another person.
The researchers in the OPCS and the ESRC data archives at Essex university were unable to produce figures or even a reliable method of calculating the people in our target group. I have to challenge the convenient guesstimate figures which have appeared from the Department. I prefer the unchallengeable analysis of Mencap and of the 1971 White Paper, "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped", which revealed that there would be about 4,400 possible claimants under the proposed amendment. We are talking of those with severe mental illness and behavioural difficulties requiring constant supervision.

Mr. Scott: We are discussing an amendment which includes the term
physical control by another person
That could amount to the need to hold a hand. The amendment does not refer to constant supervision or physical support, which were the previous criteria. We have to judge the number of people who might be eligible against the exact wording of the amendment, and not that of the 1971 concept which their Lordships now ignore.

Mr. Hannam: The Lords amendment has been tightly drawn to ensure that it catches fully the deaf-blind and the mentally handicapped as defined in the 1971 White Paper.

Mr. Rooker: If the will had been there and there was doubt about the definition in the amendment, it was open to the Government to table an amendment to the


amendment to clarify the definition, to remove any doubt, to introduce precision, to improve targeting and to reduce cost. Why did not the Government do that? Does the hon. Gentleman have an answer to that?

Mr. Hannam: This is not an issue that has suddenly descended upon us. It is one that has been discussed over many years. There is no dispute about the number of deaf-blind. Everyone is agreed about that category. We know that there are 3,200, and some of them are already in receipt of the mobility allowance. The fact that they are is the luck of the draw—the accident of living in an area where there is a helpful panel.
This is not a flash-in-the-pan attempt to get some more money out of the Treasury. The all-party group and representatives of the various disablement organisations have had meetings with three Ministers who have been responsible for the disabled since 1985. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster first proposed the allowance for the deaf-blind in a ten-minute Bill 10 years ago. He agreed in 1986, after a meeting, to discuss the matter with his officials to ascertain how a solution could be found at the margin.
In March 1987, the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury, when the Minister with responsibility for the disabled, undertook to carry out a survey of both deaf-blind and mentally-handicapped claimants with a view to wording legislation specifically to identify the groups that needed to be covered. At that time there was never any doubt about the merits of the case. There was merely a practical difficulty in finding the appropriate wording. There was never any doubt about the small numbers involved. Equally, there was an acceptance that case law was confusing rather than clarifying the position and that something needed to be done promptly to relieve the frustration and anguish that many claimants were experiencing.
The argument that we should await the OPCS report, which we now have, and the review of disability benefits before taking action is spurious in that it delays still further the necessary action that we need to take.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I know that the hon. Gentleman will want to join me and the entire House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on a succinct, balanced and well judged speech in favour of the amendment. Will he join me in advising the Minister that the cost of extending the allowance would be about a quarter of the expenditure on the mobility allowance, and that that expenditure is less than 1·5 per cent. of the general expenditure on social security benefits?

Mr. Hannam: I hope to conclude my remarks in a few minutes by pointing out that the expenditure is far less than that.
This is not a fundamental change; it is fine tuning designed to clarify a long-standing problem. That has happened with other provisions in the Bill relating to mobility allowance, such as the raising of the age limit from 75 to 80. That was a piece of fine tuning or tinkering with the system. That is what the House of Lords wishes to achieve with this amendment.
We are talking not about 100.000 or 125,000 people but about the 7,600 who suffer from dreadful mobility problems through being deaf-blind or having severe mental handicaps. The cost, at the current rate, would be

less than £10 million. It would not represent a breach of the Treasury dam—or, as some might say, the damned Treasury. If the amendment is rejected, it will be a severe blow to all those who have worked so hard to help the severely handicapped. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give a positive assurance and, to use his words during a recent meeting with our group, put the necessary provisions on the fast track in the mobility disability benefits review.
I shall vote for the Lords amendment, and I hope that all other hon. Members will do the same.

Mr. Jack Ashley: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), who does such valuable work for the disabled.
The Minister said that he wanted no lessons in conscience, and I do not propose to offer him any. However, the other place followed the example of Lord Carter and have offered a clear and practical lesson. The amendment is specifically designed to give practical and valuable help to a small group. I remind the Minister that soft words and general principles are of no value to the severely disabled who desperately need the mobility allowance.
The crux of the debate is numbers. The Opposition and some Conservative Members believe the number to be tiny—fewer than 8,000. The disability organisations also believe that. The Minister came up with a figure of 100,000 people who may be affected by the amendment. I ask Conservative Members to bear in mind the methods that he used to come up with that figure. He simply extrapolated certain figures from the OPCS survey and said that 100,000 people would benefit from the amendment. There can be no justification for that conclusion, and the Minister knows that.
I can only tell the Minister—and I am being kind to him—that it is disgraceful to assume that the number of people who would be affected by the amendment is anything like 100,000. He knows that it will affect fewer than 8,000 people, a strictly limited number. He is in statistically dangerous waters in presuming that so many people will be affected; they will not.
We are trying to help people who are both deaf and blind or who are mentally handicapped. If we cannot cast our votes to obtain a few million pounds to help those people, we will never pass the stage of saying, "Not tonight." Perhaps tonight Conservative Members will lake hold of their courage and their conscience and join us in the Lobby to vote to help those in desperate need.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: In Committee, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) put the case for such an amendment well enough to graduate to the Opposition Front Bench tonight. However, I take exception to some of his points. He argues that the worst cases are of people who fail to obtain mobility allowance, but the worst cases are those who received mobility allowance in the past but who are unable to continue doing so.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West wants an end to confusion, but it will only add to confusion if the House agrees to Lords amendment No. 2, because the number of persons affected by it is not accurately known. The hon. Gentleman claims that the Mencap analysis is tightly figured, whereas the Government's estimate is crude.


However, we know that Mencap's figures are only based on extrapolations of 1971 statistics—and the OPCS survey reveals that earlier estimates were very inaccurate.
12.15 am
The best estimate of the number of handicapped children in institutional care available before the OPCS survey was published was only half the OPCS figure of 5,500. We must conclude that the OPCS estimate is far more accurate than any earlier figures. The figure of 3,200 deaf-blind is not in question, but that of 4,000 mentally handicapped suggested by Mencap is. Although Mencap attempted to ensure the accuracy of its figures, they must be called into question when compared with the OPCS estimates.
My right hon. Friend the Minister was unsure whether Mencap's figures include people in institutional care. On the basis of Mencap's statistics, clearly they do. But the numbers are so small that they should be checked. Mencap's figures show no children at all aged 0 to 14 in residential care, and only five aged 15-plus in hospital or residential care. However, we know from OPCS surveys that more than 100,000 people are in category 10, in institutional care. I appreciate that category 10 cannot be considered in isolation, but that single statistic illustrates the difference in magnitude between the OPCS figure of 100,000 in care and Mencap's figure of a mere five.
If the House agrees to the Lords amendment, it will add to the confusion that the hon. Member for Leeds, West seeks to reduce. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House want to help the people who are the subject of the amendment, but they will be helped by a reduction in confusion, not an increase. I ask the Government to get a move on, undertake the review, and then make their proposals. The figures are available, so let the Government run the computer tape and present their proposals by the autumn. The Opposition argue that it will be five years before the Government make up their mind. I do not believe that that is true. The Government could make proper proposals at an early date.
I urge the House to reject the Lords amendment, but to press the Government to make clear suggestions to reduce confusion among the very people we want to help.

Mr. Alfred Morris: In welcoming Lords amendment No. 2, I speak, as the House knows, as the basic author of the mobility allowance and also, as the originator soon afterwards, of the proposal to set up the motability scheme. I could not, as Minister, apply the mobility allowance at once to all the eligible groups. They had to be phased into the scheme over a period of time. I readily concede that its benefits have been extended to more people since then. From the inception, as the Minister will know, that was always the plan.
The Lords amendment is of the first importance to thousands of the most severely disabled people in Britain today. It would give much needed help to disabled people with the dual handicap of deafness and blindness, and to those in need of constant supervision due to severe mental handicap and behavioural difficulties.
To be both deaf and blind is a devastating handicap whose effects on mobility are extremely serious. The Lords amendment has been called the Helen Keller amendment, but in fact some of the people it seeks to help are even more

severely disabled than Helen Keller in that, unlike her. prelingual deafness has left them without speech in addition to being both deaf and blind.
The mentally handicapped people, including many children, who would be helped by the amendment are also, by common consent, very severely disabled. To help both groups, at a cost of £10 million—which is an increase of less than 2 per cent. in spending on the mobility allowance—is a modest proposal that the Government ought to be able to accept in advance of their disability benefits review. It is an urgent proposal of help that merits the same measure of all-party support that it was given in another place.
The Government's position is hard to follow, even for the most well-informed people in this policy area. In fact, Ministers have been flatly contradicting each other. When the Bill was in Committee in the Commons, the Minister for the Disabled said that he felt that case law was dealing already—to a considerable extent—with the aim of the amendment. He reiterated this at a meeting of the all-party disablement group in January 1989, when he said—I quote from the group's minutes—
Case law is beginning to move in the right direction and define the law on this issue.
So the Minister's position has been that the law as it stands can deal with the aim of the amendment.
By contrast—as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) recalled—Lord Skelmersdale, speaking on the amendment, said:
On this matter of mobility allowance for the deaf-blind and the mentally handicapped I cannot stress too strongly that they were wanting to act, willing to act, but waiting to act."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 1989; Vol. 510, c.268.]
Thus the position of Lord Skelmersdale—also speaking for the Government—is that the aim of the amendment cannot be dealt with by the law as it stands, and that the Government are willing to act, but waiting to act to change the law.
Even if the Minister for the Disabled had been correct in Committee and when addressing the all-party disablement group, he could not gainsay the truth of what my noble Friend Lord Carter has said about the preventable suffering inflicted on the relatives and other carers of severely disabled people by the "harrowing and lengthy" task of going through the appeal procedure. Lord Allen of Abbeydale said that the changes proposed by the amendment would do much to ease despair and frustration. They would save many appeals and much expense; they would simplify the task of the adjudicators, and would show that Parliament cared.
Let me give brief details of the cases of two disabled people who would be helped by the amendment. The first is that of a young woman who is totally deaf, totally blind and has a mental handicap that causes behavioural problems. All her disabilities are due to rubella. It took four years to secure the mobility allowance for her. She cannot walk alone; indeed, she will not take even a single step alone.
The allowance was first claimed in 1984. It was initially refused, but then awarded on appeal to a medical board. The Secretary of State, clearly unhappy about the award, then referred the board's decision to a medical appeal tribunal, which refused the allowance. That case shows how extremely important it is for this House to make entitlement irrefutably clear.
The second case is that of a girl of 14. She has severe mental handicap, and also suffers from petit mal epilepsy. She "walks" on her toes with her feet turned inwards, and frequently falls. Mobility allowance was first applied for in 1985 and awarded for three years, but on the renewal claim in 1988 it was refused.
How is it possible, then, for the Minister to argue that the law as it stands is dealing already with the aim of the amendment? Again, how can he possibly defend the Government's absurd exaggerations about the cost of the amendment? Mencap, Sense and the Disability Alliance have very carefully researched the cost of the amendment and have dismissed the Government's talk of an additional cost of £100 million. The truth seems to be that the right hon. Gentleman has lost a battle with the Treasury to secure a much lower sum.
The Government stand accused of using a very crude method of "analysis" by simply adding together a few different categories of disabled people covered by reports from the OPCS. The Lords amendment is very tightly drawn to ensure that it includes only the deaf-blind and the mentally handicapped who require physical control by another person. Very few hon. Members will want to question their compelling claims to help, and I hope that we shall indeed show that this House cares by approving the amendment tonight.

Mr. John Greenway: I think that I speak for many of my hon. Friends when I say that, although I do not take a detailed interest in social security matters, I have considered them in depth after having received deeply moving letters during the last few days from such admirable charities as Mencap and Sense. All hon. Members have experience of cases where appeals appear not to have been dealt with satisfactorily. I do not, however, intend to detain the House by citing examples from my constituency.
There is considerable doubt about the number of people who would be affected by the Lords amendment. I am less concerned about the cost of the proposed provision. I am much more concerned about ending the confusion and the degrading arrangements that lead to appeal after appeal by these people, many of whom have the duel sensory disability of blindness and deafness as well as being severely mentally handicapped. We must end that confusion.
The OPCS survey provides a springboard for action. We must ensure, whether the number is 8,000 or 125,000, that we provide the right framework of benefits for these people. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security said, none of us knows whether the mobility allowance is the right benefit for some of the folk whom the OPCS survey highlighted as being in need of benefit beyond the level that has already been suggested.
I come to the House not having made up my mind whether to vote for the Lords amendment or to support the Government. It is largely because of my right hon. Friend's fine record as Minister of State in the Department of Social Security that I trust implicitly his commitment at the Dispatch Box tonight to do whatever he can to ensure that that is put right. It must be done this autumn. My right hon. Friend has a particularly fine record in respect of the deaf and the blind. In addition, the Government have a fine record in respect of the mobility allowance. During the last 10 years they have increased it sixfold. During the debate we have heard about the number of

people who now receive it. However, we must not let this opportunity pass without saying to the Government and to the Treasury that the matter, along with other matters, must be addressed in next autumn's Social Security Bill.

Mr. William Ross: I have an interest in the allowance for two reasons. The first is strictly personal. In my own family circle I have a sister who was stricken by polio in 1950. She now spends most of her time in a wheelchair. I also have a nephew who is blind. Therefore, I have personal experience of disability in the home and what it means to those who have to care for the disabled.
Secondly, I have constituency knowledge of the difficulty of obtaining the allowance for those who, to the layman's eye, appear to qualify for it with ease. I came into the Chamber only to listen to the debate, but, as all too often happened when the Minister held a different ministerial post, I felt that I had to speak because of the Minister's attitude.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said that many of the problems are due to inconsistent legal decisions. I put it to him that many of our constituency problems arise even more from inconsistent medical opinions. We have all heard that doctors differ and patients die. Because that is so, whenever someone says to me that his relation has been refused that benefit, I advise him to do as Robert the Bruce did—"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." Like Robert the Bruce, people succeed. They do so because they get a different doctor to examine them.
12.30 am
The medical decisions have created not a fuzzy borderline but a broad fuzzy band. It is difficult to know who will fall on one side or who will fall on the other. Like the rest of the House, I waited in vain for the Minister to say that he would try to clarify the degree of disability that was necessary before people could get the allowance.
I listened also to the Minister's explanation of how he arrived at the figure of 125,000 people compared with the caring charities' figure of only 8,000. I heard the Minister say plainly that the Government were not prepared to fund 125,000 new people. I failed to hear him say that the Government would not fund 8,000 people. He seemed anxious to avoid getting an accurate figure. For that reason, my hon. Friends and I will support the Lords amendment.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The House is anxious to come to a decision. I have known the Minister in a previous incarnation in the Northern Ireland Office and now in the Department of Social Security. I say, without being patronising, that I respect him. I am grateful to him for his generosity and his profound apology to me for his rather insulting remark against the background of my sedentary intervention. I apologise for that intervention.
This has been a debate about numbers. In deciding the fate of the Lords amendment, the House will not decide whether it is 125,000, 7,500 or 4,500 people. That will be decided by the tribunals to which the new group of people apply for mobility allowance. The amendment is not about whether it is 125,000, 7,500 or 4,500 people but about opening a door for a new group of people, those who are profoundly disabled and deaf. The Minister went over the


top a wee bit in talking about those who need constant attention, including holding their hands. That simplified matters to the extent of insulting those people.
The amendment would enable that new group of people to apply for mobility allowance. The tribunals, or doctors, to whom the applications are made will decide the numbers. The Minister should admit that this is all about money. My position is clear. Until my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said that he was the architect of the scheme, I did not realise that it was his brainchild. I was on the Labour ministerial team that put it together. I do not care whether it is 125,000. If 125,000 people require mobility allowance, so be it—we should accept that responsibility. I believe that the Minister in his heart of hearts would like to concede that, but he has been told by the Treasury that he cannot.
I am saying to the Minister's right hon. and hon. Friends on the Back Benches that we have a chance tonight—I am not being emotional, but I am appealing to their humanity—through the amendment, to say to the Government, "Look, you open up the avenue for this new group of people to apply for mobility allowance." Whether they get a mobility allowance is a matter not for the House, but for the statutory authorities to which we have delegated the powers to decide those matters. But we must say to the Government that that new group must have the ability to apply for that mobility allowance. I am saying in all sincerity to Conservative Members that everything is to be gained by accepting the amendment from the other place; everything is to be lost by defeating it. I plead with Conservative Members to join us in the Lobby and to support the amendment.

Mr. Scott: I sense that the House wants to reach a decision, so I shall make just four brief points.
Of course, in any system that is run by independent authorities, there will be some people who will feel that they are hard done by when they are turned down for an allowance, whether it be attendance or mobility allowance. However, the fact that the numbers have gone up from 95,000 to 580,000 under the Government hardly suggests that we are being unduly restrictive about the criteria that are being applied to the mobility allowance.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), both of whom take a close interest in these matters, urge me to early action. I must say, however, that others outside urge me to have a large-scale, long-term review of the whole nature of disability benefits. I reiterate that I seek to balance careful consideration and listening to the views of people outside with not delaying unduly appropriate action. It was said that we are in statistical deep water in this area. There is no argument about the number of deaf-blind, but I cannot agree that the amendment that their Lordships have sent down to us is sufficiently tightly drawn to limit the numbers to the extent that they calculate. I believe that our figures are likely to be more accurate.
I shall finish by quoting what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said in an oral answer when he held the post that I hold at present. He said:

In reviewing their public expenditure programme, the Government keep constantly in mind all claims for extending the scope of this important new allowance … every claim for improvement in the scheme must be weighed both against other proposals for adding to the Government's present level of help for disabled people and all other proposals for increases in public expenditure."—[Official Report, 11 July 1978; Vol. 953, c. 1226.]
I ask nothing more than to be allowed the same right, to look at all this in the round and to weigh these priorities. I ask the House to reverse the amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 219.

Divison No. 311]
[12.38 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Couchman, James


Alexander, Richard
Cran, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Allason, Rupert
Curry, David


Amess, David
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Amos, Alan
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arbuthnot, James
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Dorrell, Stephen


Ashby, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkins, Robert
Dover, Den


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dunn, Bob


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Eggar, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Emery, Sir Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Batiste, Spencer
Evennett, David


Bellingham, Henry
Fallon, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Favell, Tony


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fishburn, John Dudley


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fookes, Dame Janet


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forman, Nigel


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forth, Eric


Boswell, Tim
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bottom, Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Franks, Cecil


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Freeman, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
French, Douglas


Bowis, John
Gale, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gardiner, George


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gill, Christopher


Brazier, Julian
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bright, Graham
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gorst, John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Gow, Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Gregory, Conal


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carrington, Matthew
Hague, William


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Cash, William
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hanley, Jeremy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Chapman, Sydney
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Chope, Christopher
Harris, David


Churchill, Mr
Hawkins, Christopher


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayes, Jerry


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayward, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Conway, Derek
Heddle, John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)






Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hill, James
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hind, Kenneth
Norris, Steve


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hordern, Sir Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howard, Michael
Page, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B 'wd)
Patnick, Irvine


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Portillo, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Raffan, Keith


Irvine, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jack, Michael
Redwood, John


Jackson, Robert
Renton, Tim


Jessel, Toby
Rhodes James, Robert


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Key, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rost, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ryder, Richard


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lang, Ian
Sayeed, Jonathan


Latham, Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shelton, Sir William


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lilley, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lord, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Speed, Keith


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Squire, Robin


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, David
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


Major, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Maples, John
Stokes, Sir John


Marlow, Tony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sumberg, David


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Summerson, Hugo


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mellor, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Miller, Sir Hal
Thorne, Neil


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thornton, Malcolm


Mitchell, Sir David
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Trippier, David


Morrison, Sir Charles
Trotter, Neville


Moss, Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neale, Gerrard
Viggers, Peter


Needham, Richard
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Nelson, Anthony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Neubert, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walden, George


Nicholls, Patrick
Walker, Bill (T'side North)





Waller, Gary
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ward, John
Wolfson. Mark


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wood, Timothy


Warren, Kenneth
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Watts, John
Yeo, Tim


Wells, Bowen
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wheeler, John



Whitney, Ray
Tellers for the Ayes:


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Tom Sackville.


Wilkinson, John



Wilshire, David





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Allen, Graham
Eadie, Alexander


Alton, David
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Anderson, Donald
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fatchett, Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fisher, Mark


Ashton, Joe
Flannery, Martin


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Flynn, Paul


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Foster, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Fraser, John


Battle, John
Fyfe, Maria


Beckett, Margaret
Galbraith, Sam


Beggs, Roy
Galloway, George


Beith, A. J.
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bell, Stuart
George, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bermingham, Gerald
Golding, Mrs Llin


Blunkett, David
Gordon, Mildred


Boateng, Paul
Graham, Thomas


Boyes, Roland
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hannam, John


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hardy, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Buckley, George J.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Caborn, Richard
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Callaghan, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Home Robertson, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hood, Jimmy


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cartwright, John
Howells, Geraint


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hoyle, Doug


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clay, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cohen, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Coleman, Donald
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Janner, Greville


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Crowther, Stan
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cryer, Bob
Kennedy, Charles


Cummings, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lambie, David


Cunningham, Dr John
Lamond, James


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted


Darling, Alistair
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Litherland, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Livingstone, Ken


Dewar, Donald
Livsey, Richard


Dixon, Don
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dobson, Frank
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Doran, Frank
Loyden, Eddie


Douglas, Dick
McAllion, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
McAvoy, Thomas


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McFall, John






McKelvey, William
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


McLeish, Henry
Rowlands, Ted


Maclennan, Robert
Ruddock, Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Salmond, Alex


Madden, Max
Sedgemore, Brian


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marek, Dr John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Short, Clare


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Maxton, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Meale, Alan
Snape, Peter


Michael, Alun
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Steinberg, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stott, Roger


Morgan, Rhodri
Straw, Jack


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Turner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Vaz, Keith


Nellist, Dave
Wall, Pat


O'Brien, William
Wallace, James


O'Neill, Martin
Walley, Joan


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Parry, Robert
Wareing, Robert N.


Patchett, Terry
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Pendry, Tom
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Pike, Peter L.
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Prescott, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wilson, Brian


Radice, Giles
Winnick, David


Randall, Stuart
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Redmond, Martin
Worthington, Tony


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wray, Jimmy


Richardson, Jo
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)



Robertson, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, Geoffrey
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.


Rogers, Allan



Rooker, Jeff

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 1 and 2: Mr. John Battle, Mrs. Margaret Beckett, Mr. Michael Fallon, Mr. Peter Lloyd and Mr. Nicholas Scott. Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to: to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — Transport (Scotland) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 7

TRANSFER OF SHIPPING COMPANIES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 5, line 4, at end insert—
(2A) An order appointing a day under subsection (2) above may make such amendments or repeals of any enactment (including an enactment contained in a local or private Act and any order, regulation or other instrument having effect by virtue of an Act) pertaining to the Group as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the transfer.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos 2 to 4.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The main purpose of Lords amendment No. 1 is to ensure that the existing powers vested in the Scottish Transport Group to act as a harbour authority may be vested in Caledonian MacBrayne when it is transferred to the Secretary of State's ownership. At present the STG is the formally appointed harbour authority for a number of ferry terminals, although day-to-day functions are carried out by CalMac. It would be anomalous to leave the STG with harbour powers when it was no longer responsible for shipping services.
Lords amendment No. 2 relates to parliamentary procedure for an order appointing a day for the transfer of the securities of the shipping companies to the Secretary of State. The amendment is a purely drafting one and its purpose is to bring the wording of the relevant provision into line with normal practice in references in legislation to such parliamentary procedure.
Lords amendment No. 3 provides that the making of an order to wind up the STG should be made by statutory instrument. That will ensure that such an order is brought to the attention of Parliament and published. The main purpose of Lords amendment No. 4 is to ensure that any remaining powers vested in the STG to act as a harbour authority may be provided for after the group is dissolved. I have already said that it is intended to transfer those powers to CalMac under clause 7 when the company is transferred to the Secretary of State's ownership. Should, however, this not be done for any reason or if there were any other outstanding matters in private or secondary legislation pertaining to the STG for the time of dissolution, the amendment will ensure that appropriate provision may be made.

Mr. Brian Wilson: This debate will be short and sharp. I need hardly say that we regret that the amendments before the House are so few and so lacking in content. It is worth noting that they are the only amendments that have been made to the Bill during its entire progress through both Houses of Parliament. They do not add up to very much in terms of altering the substance of the legislation.
It would he appropriate to ask the Minister if he could spell out, in some detail, the timetable that he now envisages in relation to the amendment dealing with the winding up of the STG. When will the bus company sales take place and when will CalMac be handed over to its new auspices, however they turn out to be defined?
I seek clarification of the amendment dealing with harbour powers. We all know that, in recent months, in the Western Isles the question of who controls harbours has given rise to some controversy. Clearly it is a matter of interest to the House. Is the STG's control over harbours purely a nominal matter or does it maintain the effective operation of some of the harbours in the ports that it serves? If so, are those to be handed over to the new Caledonian MacBrayne board or will they reside with the various local authorities and other bodies that own the piers in the areas served by Caledonian MacBrayne? The Minister's assistance in clearing up those points tonight would be appreciated.
As we conclude the parliamentary consideration of the Bill, I suggest that its main thrust, the dividing up and selling off of the Scottish Bus Group, is a matter of Scottish Office honour. It has told us that it wants management-worker buy-outs to succeed, but it has written nothing into the Bill that makes it likely that they will succeed. It has insisted that it is opposed to asset-stripping of the huge property wealth which goes with the sales, but it has adamantly refused to include anything in the Bill which would prevent it. It has deplored the prospect of predatory takeover bids within a short time of the sell-offs, but it has declined to legislate for safeguards against them occurring.
The Opposition will keep close tabs on the course of events following the sell-off of the companies which are at present part of the Scottish Bus Group. If this ends up as a bonanza for private bus companies and property speculators, we shall ensure that the Government are made to pay a political price for double-dealing. If genuine buy-outs succeed, we shall wish them well.
The city centre bus stations in our major Scottish towns and cities would represent particularly attractive targets for speculators. If they are valued and sold as bus stations and then put on the market for quite different purposes, as happened in many parts of England, the Scottish Office will bear a heavy responsibility.
Some good could come of the legislation if the buy-outs succeed and if the Scottish Office turns into deeds some of the words spoken by the Minister at various stages of the legislation's progress. In that spirit, we shall not divide the House, but I would be grateful for the Minister's clarification on the points that I have raised.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Lords amendment No. 3 provides for the order to be made by statutory instrument. Like the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), I hope that the Minister will say when that can be brought forward. What is the timetable for the dissolution of the Scottish Transport Group, to which the amendment refers? There is a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety about the future, not least among the bus companies in rural areas which believe, following a report by the National Audit Office, that the Government are considering the withdrawal or the reallocation of fuel duty rebate. That rebate enables some otherwise uneconomic services to be run on a commercial basis. Its withdrawal or

reduction could mean such routes becoming deregistered, leading to an added burden on regional councils to subsidise them and a probable cut in services.
The uncertainty about the future is most obvious with Caledonian MacBrayne on the Wemyss Bay-Rothesay ferry service, which faces considerable problems because of the inability to provide a proper service during the peak summer season. Often passengers and cars are left on the piers. Any decision on a much-needed larger or second vessel now faces a long delay until the new board is functioning and can deliberate on the situation. Meanwhile, the business community particularly suffers increasing disruption. I hope that the Minister can say when the board will be able to deliberate on that matter.
Amendment No. 4 refers to the transfer of powers from the Scottish Transport Group as a harbour authority to Caledonian MacBrayne. As the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North said, there may be problems about the ownership of piers. I am doubtful about this transfer of the harbour authority to Caledonian MacBrayne.
1 am
No doubt the Minister is aware that my party has always been in favour of road equivalent tariffs. Of course, that would make the piers part of the road network and they would be under the jurisdiction of the local regional authority. The piers in my constituency belong either to Strathclyde or Caledonian MacBrayne. That company recently acquired the pier at Colonsay and could have a monopoly on usage. Presumably it would be able to charge pier dues, and they might be unacceptably high. It would be able to deny berthing to fishermen, especially inshore fishermen, and perhaps to cargo boats and yachts.
The toilet facilities at Colonsay pier are of extreme importance to the people of Colonsay and especially to visitors. Facilities are available only when the ship is in harbour. At Port Ellen on Islay the local community council wants to build a marina, but instead of having to apply to the local authority, it has to go through Caledonian MacBrayne. I am worried about the restrictions that Caledonian MacBrayne may put on other users of the piers. I hope that the Minister can give some direction about that.
We have reached the final stage of the Transport (Scotland) Bill. I hate to see Scotland in brackets. It is unfortunate but inevitable that once again we are debating Scottish business early in the morning. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the questions that I have posed.

Mr. John Home Robertson: We gather from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) that the Social and Liberal Democrats, or whatever else they are called——

Mrs. Ray Michie: Liberal Democrats will do.

Mr. Home Robertson: —are returning to community politics with a vengeance by bringing to the House a debate on the lavatory at Colonsay harbour. I appreciate the genuine importance of that, but I am filled with alarm because in a few weeks I am taking my family on holiday to the hon. Lady's constituency and we shall visit some of the islands about which she spoke. I sincerely hope that the hon. Lady was exaggerating.
I agree with the hon. Lady that it is completely inappropriate for legislation that relates exclusively to


Scotland to be dealt with in this Chamber, let alone at this hour. Legislation affecting Scotland should be dealt with in a Scottish Parliament, as it will be.
Amendment No. 3 provides for an order to be made by statutory instrument to wind up the Scottish Transport Group. That is of considerable importance because winding up would follow immediately the privatisation of the Scottish bus companies, including the Lowland Scottish and the Eastern Scottish bus companies which serve my constituency. That is of great concern to the management and employees of those companies who between them are hoping to buy out at least one of those companies. It is also of concern to the passengers and the local authorities that have to subsidise them.
These are matters which should be given further consideration by the representatives of the people who are affected. Will these statutory instruments be made by the affirmative or the negative procedure? It is important that hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies should have an opportunity to debate these affairs further before the Scottish Transport Group can be wound down.

Mr. John McAllion: Will the Minister comment on the changed circumstances in Tayside? He will be aware that, since we last debated this matter, the Tayside public transport company has expressed its intention to seek a management-employee buy-out from Tayside regional council. It could succeed before Strathtay has a chance to succeed with its management-employee buy-out as part of the disposal programme that has been organised by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to give an assurance that, whatever decision is arrived at between Tayside regional council and the transport company, it will in no way prejudice the application by Strathtay's management and employees for a buy-out of their company. It should not make any difference whether the public transport company's application is made before or after Strathtay's. Equal consideration should be given to the merits of each. Strathtay's application should not be prejudiced in any way by the fact that the public transport company is to go into the private sector.
As the main objective of the disposal programme is to sustain fair competition, the Minister will know that the public transport company in Tayside, Strathtay and Stagecoach carry 80 per cent. of traffic in the region. Will he give an assurance that, when they are all in the private sector, no one of them will be able to take over or merge with either of the other two, and that the Government will ensure that all three will remain separate and independent and provide real choice for consumers in Tayside?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), but he was not correct when he said that we did not accept any Opposition amendments. We accepted a significant amendment on page 2 of the Bill. The word "may" was changed to "shall". The significance of that is that the disposal programme will be published—the preferences to be given to management-employee buy-outs will be spelt out.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) asked about Tayside transport. It is likely that Tayside

regional council will shortly seek the Secretary of State's approval, and my right hon. and learned Friend will consider the case on the same basis on which approval was given to the Grampian regional transport buy-out earlier this year—that the price paid should reflect the market value of the assets.

Mr. McAllion: I understand that the Secretary of State will give the same consideration to Tayside as he gave to Grampian. The assurance that I am seeking is that, if that decision favours the Tayside management-employee buy-out, that will in no way prejudice the Seccretary of State's consideration of Strathtay's bid to have a management-employee buy-out. Tayside's winning a successful management-employee buy-out should not in any way tell against the workers in Strathtay who are seeking the same type of solution.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It could not possibly tell against them. The hon. Gentleman may be reassured on that point.
I was asked about the timetable. The earliest possible start to the sales, assuming that the Bill completes its parliamentary stages before the summer recess, will be later this year. The legislation will come into force two months after it is passed. Although some work has begun, further work will be needed to prepare and publish the disposal programme. The earliest that companies could be advertised for sale is about November or December, the first sale being completed in early 1990. It is expected that a series of sales will take place over a period of time and that the programme will take about one year to complete.
In due course, information, including memorandums and financial and other information about companies, will be made available to prospective purchasers when the companies are being offered for sale.
I was asked, in regard to CalMac, when the Scottish Transport Group would be dissolved, and about the setting up of the CalMac board. The time-scale for this cannot be determined precisely at this stage, but the board will be appointed in due course, perhaps before very long.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) was particularly interested in the CalMac harbour powers. These are exercised by the STG and they relate to the piers owned by the STG and operated by CalMac. It is appropriate that these powers should be transferred to Caledonian MacBrayne and they relate to the ferry terminals of Castlebay in Barra, Scalasaig in Colonsay, east Loch Tarbert in Harris, Oban, Port Ellen in Islay, Gourock, Wemyss bay and Largs.
I was asked about the monopoly on the usage of piers, and this is an important point. Competition law provides safeguards against monopoly and anti-competitive practices, and it is open to anyone concerned about a potential anti-competitive practice to make a complaint to the Office of Fair Trading.
I was also asked about the Wemyss bay and Rothesay services. There is no doubt that the present situation on the Gourock-Dunoon crossing is anomalous. There is an unsubsidised private sector crossing competing with a subsidised public sector crossing on similar routes. The vessels which provide this crossing are shared with the Wemyss bay-Rothesay crossing and are interchangeable. There, therefore, seems a good case for the private sector to take on these crossings. These are operated by Western Ferries in Gourock and Dunoon. We shall be asking the


new board to investigate with the private sector the possibility of transferring these routes to that sector. Obviously these discussions would have to cover the basis on which the routes would continue to be provided, and the Government's commitment to island services must be fulfilled.

Mrs. Ray Michie: The Minister may have misunderstood what I was saying. I was talking not about the transfer of the route to the private sector but about how, because of the delay, no decision will be made on the need for a second ship or a larger vessel. That has been discussed for a number of years as a requirement for that route.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The only requirement is for setting up the Cal M ac hoard without undue delay, and we shall take note of what the hon. Lady says.

Mr. Wilson: I want to be clear about the transfer of the harbour powers. Will exactly the same powers relating to exactly the same harbours he transferred from the STG to the new board of Caledonian MacBrayne?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There is nothing more complex than that. The hon. Gentleman raised the significant matter of asset stripping. I shall not spell out id great detail all the points that I made in Committee about the four options, but I shall say this. We shall consider all those options carefully so as to avoid asset stripping, in the light of the advice from the Scottish Transport Group, which it will also be getting from its property advisers. We shall be taking that seriously into account.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) spoke about the procedure for making a dissolution order under clause 14. Clause 14 as amended by Lords amendment No. 3 provides that the order dissolving the STG shall be made by statutory instrument. The clause does not specify any parliamentary procedure for the order. This means that it is not subject to the parliamentary control, but it will be published and brought to the attention of Parliament. It is not considered necessary to lay down a parliamentary procedure for the order as it will essentially be a consequential measure needed to dissolve the STG once its operating subsidiaries have been disposed of.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister confirm that this will not be a statutory instrument as we normally understand it, but simply yet another Scottish Office edict?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It will be published and put in the Library, but is a consequential measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 agreed to.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

That the Customs duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 4) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989. No. 1088), dated 29th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Question agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Motions 19 to 27 deal with urban development, and with the leave of the House I shall put them together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

That the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Port of London Authority and London Borough of Newham) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Borough of Walsall) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (General) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the London Docklands Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Thames Water Authority) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (General) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Transport Land) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the Sheffield Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989, dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the Black Country Developmnt Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989. dated 7th June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.

That the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Central Electricity Generating Board) Order 1989, dated 21st June 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Petition

Concessionary Television Licences

Mr. Elliot Morley: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition which was organised by Mrs. Joan Davies of 25, Stow road, Scunthorpe on concessionary television licences. Mrs. Davies has attracted considerable support in Scunthorpe and the surrounding area for her idea of extending concessionary television licences to all pensioners irrespective of whether they live in sheltered accommodation.
The present position, of which you may be aware, Mr. Speaker, is that pensioners who live in certain forms of sheltered accommodation have concessionary licences. When they leave that accommodation, the new tenants do not enjoy those licences. This has led to unfairness. For example, one sheltered housing tenant, who lived in an upstairs flat, moved to a downstairs flat when she became increasingly frail. She was told that she no longer qualified for a concessionary television licence and she lost it.
It is argued by Mrs. Davies—I wholeheartedly agree with her—that many pensioners receive benefits such as concessionary travel as of right when they reach pensionable age. There seems no reason why the right to a concessionary licence should not be extended to all pensioners. After all, all pensioners have contributed throughout their lives, whether working or not, to the good of our country. The least that we can give them is a concessionary licence.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall read the petition:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of the people of Scunthorpe showeth that there is a need to change the rules concerning concessionary TV licences.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will agree to grant a concessionary TV licence to all people of pensionable age as of right.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Swansea (Submarine Base)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Ministry of Defence has decided to make the port of Swansea a Z-base for berthing and servicing nuclear submarines—or has it? It has never officially admitted this. It has never officially told any of the local councils—the county council or Swansea city council—although we understand that a committee of experts has given the green light to the scheme. The members of the committee are faceless people with no interest in or commitment to the port of Swansea. Local people have no confidence in the decision of the committee of experts.
I suspect that the Ministry of Defence is saying that this is a tiresome debate raised by local Members on the basis of "not in my back yard". There is an element of that approach. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and I represent the strongly held views of the people of Swansea in this respect, but I believe that there are strong objective factors for rejecting the Ministry's proposal, if it be a proposal. I shall try to smoke out the truth from the Minister with a series of questions and set out why the designation should not take place.
In my judgment. there is a real danger of blighting Swansea at a time when it is seeking to shed the vestiges of pollution and industrialisation. With vision and imagination, it is seeking to upgrade the city. It is appropriate that the debate takes place in a week when yet again there has been an accident in a submarine, albeit a Soviet one. It has happened several times in the past couple of years.
I shall invite the Minister to visit the port of Swansea to see the position for himself. My constituency is to the east of the docks entrance and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West, who represents the constituency on the other side of the river, has an equal interest in the possibility of a nuclear base being established. St. Thomas is a highly populated and self-contained community, and the port is on the doorstep of the proposed development. I was there on Friday and I heard the anger and frustration of local people. My family has close links with the docks and with St. Thomas. My great-grandfather worked in the docks, my grandfather worked on the railways in the docks and my father worked as a fitter on the Graigola wharf—the very wharf where the berth is likely to be established.
If the Minister came to Swansea he would see on the west hank of the Tawe, in my right hon. Friend's constituency, the imaginative development of the marina, where derelict port and railway areas have been transformed into a leisure, recreation and residential complex. A similar scheme was proposed by Associated British Ports for the east bank, which is on my side of the river, but the proposed Ministry of Defence designation can have only a negative effect on that proposal.
There are great fears about safety if the designation goes ahead. The relevant Navy personnel in Wales have given bland assurances, but they would, wouldn't they? If there was an accident there would be a substantial risk to local people. Whatever may be in such a designation for the Ministry, there is nothing in it for the port of Swansea. It is negative—there is no new employment or investment. All that faces the port of Swansea is a possible blight.


There has been no consultation with the local authority. It is all very undemocratic. Did the experts who made this informed decision—I understand that they are mostly people linked with the Ministry—visit the port of Swansea? Were they there with the group on 11 July? Are there any Welsh people on that committee? Have any members of the committee ever been elected to anything? To my knowledge, there has been no contact with the county council since November last year. Can the Minister confirm that? The local Associated British Ports management has not been party to any decision.
Is it right that the Ministry of Defence has decided to relocate from Cardiff on the basis that the Cardiff bay development makes the designation there inappropriate? Has it considered the fact that there are similar, imaginative developments in Swansea? Swansea will not be a soft touch for the defence bureaucrats. What is the proposed timetable for the development and the safety plan that will be linked with it? Has the Ministry considered as relevant the fact that because of shallow water the submarines cannot submerge until they are several miles out in the channel?
The Ministry's only argument in favour of designating the port of Swansea as a Z-berth is that it wants more civilian ports for the nuclear submarines to visit. We understand that they might visit Swansea only once or twice a year—and at what cost? Potentially the cost is great, with no compensating factors for the citizens of Swansea. Public opinion is mightily against the proposal, as I witnessed when I visited St. Thomas.
An editorial in the local paper said:
Only an unusual sort of person would welcome nuclear submarines to Swansea … But history shows that accidents do happen and it is difficult to feel any happier about this development than we would if it was decided to build a small nuclear power station here.
Why Swansea has been nominated to replace Cardiff as a Z-Berth is not entirely clear. Perhaps it is simply that Swansea is also in South Wales.
If that is so, there would he more sense in selecting Milford Haven, which is a far less densely populated area and which, unlike tidal Swansea, has a deep water harbour. It also has the merit of being closer to the open sea.
There is total opposition within the port of Swansea.
Swansea has always given a traditional, warm welcome to visiting naval ships and personnel—but there will he no welcome for those nuclear submarines. if the Ministry of Defence has any regard for its own public relations, it will go elsewhere, away from the centres of population, where the risk, and the blight, will he less.

Mr. Alan Williams: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) in everything that he said. We are perturbed by the difficulty that we have encountered in obtaining information—particularly about the committee that apparently made the decision. I tabled a question to the Minister on whether the local council has been officially informed of the decision—and if so, when. I thought that it would be the simplest of questions to answer, but I received from the Minister only a holding reply.
The argument goes beyond nuclear submarines, to questions of accountability, answerability and whether local democracy is to be recognised. The Ministry's decision can only be described as arbitrary. It was taken by an anonymous quango. The Minister himself refuses even

to name the committee's members. The committee is unaccountable, faceless and, I suggest, rigged—as I hope to prove.
The district and county councils and the two local Members of Parliament are all bitterly opposed to the proposal. Theirs is not just a quirkish attitude, because they are all equally opposed to the development of the Hinkley point nuclear power station further along the Bristol channel. In the midst of fighting that campaign, we discover that the Ministry of Defence is, without any consultation, imposing a mobile nuclear reactor at the centre of our community.
Despite the existence of the nuclear warships safety committee, there is no debate, discussion or explanation. The committee owes no one an argument. No attempt is made to explain in detail the factors that led to the committee's decision to pick on Swansea for the berth. Nor has there been any voting on the matter. I repeat that the decision was made arbitrarily—yet the Minister states that the committee is independent.
The committee enjoys a very strange form of independence. The Ministry of Defence pays its costs which, at the very least, places in some doubt the degree of its independence. We know also that of the committee's 23 permanent members, five are serving Ministry of Defence officials and another five are former Ministry officials. Almost half the committee's membership is accounted for by former or serving members of the Ministry's own staff, who can hardly he expected to be open-minded about such an issue.
In addition, the Ministry has the power to appoint an additional seven members when issues relevant to the Ministry are discussed. Therefore, the Minister can pack the committee with officials to ensure the result that he wants.
I trust that the Minister accepts that I mean in no way to impugn his honour, because he is a fair-minded man. Nevertheless, we have not been given the explanations that we want locally. In a parliamentary answer, the Minister states that the Ministry of Defence
has always followed its"—
the committee's—
advice."—[Official Report, 3 July 1989; Vol. 156, c. 29]
That is not surprising: it is the Ministry of Defence advising the Ministry of Defence. It would he astonishing if it did not accept the findings and recommendations.
Are there any representatives of environmental interests? Is the Welsh Office the Department involved, or the Scottish Office, or the Northern Ireland Office? What we know is that of the 23 permanent members who are not ex-officials, eight—as the Minister has said in another answer—are full-time employees of public bodies. I assume that they are organisations such as the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. They are hardly free-minded individuals. The Minister may tell me that completely different organisations are involved; tip to now, we have been given no information.
We would also like to know whether the council has any power to refuse, on behalf of residents, the establishment of this berth. None of us wants to scaremonger, but this is an unnecessary risk. As my hon. Friend said, in the space of about six weeks three Soviet submarines have been involved in fires. I am glad to learn of the good record that the Minister claims for British submarines in the detailed reply that he provided—I am grateful for that detail. But we must bear it in mind that Chernobyl and Three Mile


Island "could never happen", and that the soldiers exposed to radiation in Australia were so exposed on the best scientific advice of that time, because it was believed that they would be safe. The assessment of safety is mobile and flexible.
The Minister says that submarines want to visit civil ports, and that such ports are very important to good relations between the Royal Navy and the community. In fact, they are counterproductive in that respect: far from creating good relations, they are creating animosity.
We would like some clarification on the 550-metre safety area, which seems ludicrously inadequate. When Welsh sheep have been irradiated by the Chernobyl incident, it is very difficult for us to convince our constituents that the military radiation risk is limited to 550 metres. If anything went wrong, who would meet the cost? Would it be the Ministry of Defence? Would our constituents have any rights? Would they be entitled to any compensation and, if so, from whom? What are the procedures? None of that is clear to us at present, and we want the answers for our constituents.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) on his success in securing the Adjournment debate. I must confess that I cannot congratulate him on much else. I do not think that I have heard two more whingeing, scaremongering speeches in all my life, and I think it very unfortunate that the constituents of Swansea must have such representatives. The reality is that the safety record of the Royal Navy is second to none.

Mr. Alan Williams: I think that the Minister should accept that Adjournment debates arc normally not times for indulging in personal attacks of the sort in which he has just indulged, because time is so limited. If that is the way in which he wants to conduct the campaign, however, I promise him that we can conduct it in the same manner. We tried to avoid personal acrimony; we went out of our way to pay personal tribute to him, whatever our real feelings may have been, and I bitterly resent his comments.

Mr. Hamilton: We have heard very misleading information tonight, and it is a pity that such misleading information has been put about. The Labour defence policy review, which has just been produced, has changed attitudes on nuclear weapons slightly, but in practice we have, I think, seen one unilateral policy replaced by another.
The Labour party claims that it is committed to conventional defence. It is extraordinary that it should adopt such an attitude towards nuclear-powered submarines. They are an essential part of our conventional capability. The capacity of the Royal Navy to fight wars would be seriously damaged if it did not have nuclear-powered submarines.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East said that he had never been told officially about the decision. A regional naval officer will be approaching the chief executive of the local county council. He would not be doing so if a decision had not been taken by the nuclear powered warships safety committee.

Mr. Anderson: When is that to be?

Mr. Hamilton: It will happen shortly.
Swansea is not replacing Cardiff. Visits to Cardiff will continue to take place. As the hon. Member for Swansea, East said, there have been a number of visits by Royal Navy ships to Swansea. They have been extremely popular. I see absolutely no reason why visits by a nuclear-powered submarine should not be extremely popular, too.
I welcome the opportunity to put the record straight on the safety of Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines and to dispel some of the understandable but unfounded fears that have been expressed about the proposal that they should visit Swansea for rest and recreation. As I said earlier, the Royal Navy's safety record in operating nuclear submarines is second to none and is the result of meticulous care and planning in every aspect of the design and operation of nuclear reactors. For comparisons to he made with Soviet submarines is deeply insulting to the Royal Navy.
I should like to explain the vital role that nuclear submarines play in the defence of this country and the West and why visits to civil ports are so essential. In wartime, the Royal Navy would have a number of tasks, including the defence of shipping, the interception and containment of Soviet forces in the North sea and the provision of anti-submarine protection for NATO's Atlantic fleet.
The particular capability of the Royal Navy's nuclear-powered submarines would be critical to the United Kingdom's and NATO's ability to carry out those tasks. Nuclear-powered submarines are especially potent weapons in anti-submarine warfare. They have played an increasingly important role in the Royal Navy since the early 1960s. They will continue to be an essential part of any future fleet. The continued high morale of crews is a vital factor in the effective operation of all naval vessels, but that is particularly true of submarines whose crews have to spend long periods in a confined environment. Visits to civil ports for rest and recreation have an important part to play in maintaining morale. They also help to foster good relations between the Royal Navy and the community that it serves, which is of benefit to both.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister claim that there is any advantage at all to the citizens of Swansea from visits on perhaps two occasions a year?

Mr. Hamilton: In the past, Royal Navy visits to Swansea have been extremely popular. That is why I do not think that what we have heard from the hon. Member for Swansea, East and the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is representative of the views of the people of Swansea at large. They enjoy having Royal Navy personnel ashore. Their visits have gone down extremely well. I do not believe that their attitude will change just because we are talking about a nuclear-powered submarine rather than a surface ship.
It is important not to forget the economic benefits that such visits bring. Crew members who are not on duty will stay in local hotels and will, of course, make use of local entertainment facilities. There have been many successful visits in the past by Royal Navy nuclear submarines to commercial ports such as Liverpool, Cardiff, Barry and Southampton. In the past 12 months there have been '13 such visits.
At present, there are only a small number of civil ports with berths that have been cleared to receive nuclear-powered submarines, and there are obvious advantages in having a wider variety. Moreover, as the number of submarines in service has increased, so has the need for port visits. Added to this has been our reluctant decision to discontinue vists to Hull because of navigational problems and, for the time being, to Barry, because we anticipated difficulties in maintaining the water level there at low tide. Swansea has been visited for many years by conventionally powered vessels and has always been very popular with the Royal Navy. For all these reasons, we decided to examine the possibility of nuclear-powered submarine visits to Swansea.
After preliminary discussions with port and local authorities, the Royal Navy carried out a feasibility study, which was approved by the nuclear-powered warships safety committee. The results of that study showed that the berth would be suitable for visits of nuclear-powered warships, and my officials will soon approach the chief executive of West Glamorgan county council to begin further discussion which will concentrate on safety matters.
I must stress that the visits will be only for the purposes of rest and recreation for the crews. There is no question of nuclear-powered submarines undergoing any kind of servicing or refuelling during their visits to Swansea. The submarines will be prohibited from discharging any radioactive material into the environment during the visits, and the fears tht submarines will pollute the environment around Swansea are entirely groundless.
The Royal Navy has placed the greatest emphasis on ensuring that we have never had an accident involving the reactor of a nuclear-powered submarine. Our safety standards for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of nuclear reactors and their associated systems are extremely rigorous, and we are continually seeking to improve them still further. All processes arc carefully monitored and recorded, and there is a thorough system of checks at every stage, from initial design through to operation.
In addition to the several Ministry of Defence organisations that oversee nuclear safety matters, an independent committee—I emphasise that it is independent—known as the nuclear-powered warships safety committee advises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers on all public safety measures concerned with the construction, operation and maintenance of nuclear-powered warships.

Mr. Alan Williams: Who appoints them?

Mr. Hamilton: Although the committee has no executive powers, in practice this Ministry has always followed its advice on matters which fall within its terms of reference. Eighteen of the 23 permanent members of the nuclear-powered warships safety committee are from outside the Ministry of Defence. They include experts from the National Radiological Protection Board, the Department of Health, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as well as academic experts in the nuclear field.
It is not right to describe these people as faceless. I do not name them, for security reasons. They have expertise

in nuclear matters. It is not good casting aspersions on their integrity. They act independently. We take heed of their advice.

Mr. Alan Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman answer a simple question: who has decided the composition of the committee? The hon. Gentleman has said in an answer that his Department meets the committee's costs. Who has decided whence the membership should be drawn and who are the appropriate people to be represented on that committee?

Mr. Hamilton: I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes that decision. These people know about nuclear matters. It is important that people with that skill and understanding of nuclear matters are put on the committee. It makes no sense to go miles outside the nuclear world. These are complicated and difficult matters and it is important that people who understand nuclear matters are on the committee. The committee has carefully examined the public safety aspects of the proposed Z-berth at Swansea, and has decided that the berth is suitable for use by nuclear-powered submarines.
The best testament to the Royal Navy's safety precautions is its excellent record. During the period of almost 30 years for which we have been operating nuclear-powered submarines, there has not been a single incident which has endangered a reactor, or caused a radiological hazard to service men, base personnel or members of the public. It would be useful if the right hon. Member for Swansea, West and the hon. Member for Swansea, East made these points to their constituents. The Royal Navy's concentration on safety measures has been responsible for this record, which is second to none.
Clearly, though, we must not be complacent. The probability of accidents and their possible consequences have been examined in great detail and the accuracy of the calculations checked by independent assessors. We maintain comprehensive plans to react to any accident involving the reactor of a Royal Navy submarine, and test them regularly in exercises. Every civil port where Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines are allowed to berth is covered by a special safety scheme, prepared in full consultation with all the relevant county, city and local councils and local emergency services.
Those are constantly reviewed and revised when necessary. The purpose of the schemes is to co-ordinate the various agencies involved in protecting public safety in the unlikely event of a nuclear accident.

Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister saying that the decision has in effect been taken without asking local safety experts about it?

Mr. Hamilton: We are saying that the recommendation from the nuclear safety committee is that we should use Swansea. We will now consult with the county council, and a decision will probably be made after that.

Mr. Alan Williams: What will the consultation cover?

Mr. Hamilton: The consultation will cover the tying in of the whole business of safety precautions and exercises that will be done with the local authorities. They are, of course complimentary to the Royal Navy plans that deal with the reactor itself. A special safety scheme will be


prepared for the berth at Swansea and copies will be available in public libraries. My officials intend to raise the subject with the local authorities as soon as possible.
Special safety schemes contain predictions of the probability and consequences of accidents which are based on our best and most up-to-date technical advice and are carried out in line with the recommendations laid down by the International Commission for Radiological Protection. Those predictions, which are scrutinised by external consultants, show not only that the possibility of an accident involving the reactor of a Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarine is remote, but that, even if such an accident did occur while a submarine was in port,

the chances of any significant radiological hazard to the local population are still slim. That is partly because of the strong containment provided by the hull of a submarine, and partly because we choose the location of berths carefully to ensure that they are as far away as possible from homes and schools.
Local authorities are informed three weeks in advance of all nuclear-powered warship visits, and for the duration of each visit a naval emergency monitoring team, a MOD health physicist and a naval incident commander are located at the port concerned as a precautionary measure.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Adjourned at fourteen minutes to Two o'clock.